Preamble

The House 'net at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

INVALID VEHICLES AND MOBILITY ALLOWANCE

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): With permission, I should like to make a statement, with which my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales wish to be associated, about the invalid vehicle service and mobility allowance.
In September 1974, my predecessor announced the provision of a mobility allowance as an alternative to the invalid tricycle which could reach the very large number of disabled people who cannot drive. The mobility allowance is now available to all those in the age groups 15 to 50, and since 1st January the vast majority of claimants have chosen the mobility allowance in preference to the trike. Disabled people are deciding for themselves that cash is the best way of meeting their needs for mobility.
In a written reply to a parliamentary Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) today, my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the disabled is announcing the first-stage arrangements for phasing children into the mobility allowance scheme.
When my predecessor announced her mobility policy there was no reason to believe that the trike would not be available for issue as long as could be seen ahead. We have always ensured that the vehicle meets the relevant Construction and Use Regulations of the Department of the Environment. In their concern about the accident statistics of this vehicle, the Government have published a great deal of information about the safety of the tricycle. The Government also initiated an official study of tricycle

maintenance, the report of which has today been placed in the Libraries of the House and of another place.
It reveals a disturbing situation. Two firms which are shown to have a very poor record of maintenance have been removed from the list of approved repairers. A third firm has been given a strong warning. The Government have decided further that the tricycle should no longer be exempted from MoT tests. But there is a decisive new factor. The progress of international standards in this field now makes it most probable that before long the limits of the present design of the tricycle will have been reached. Thus in the longer term the trike cannot form part of our mobility help for disabled people.
Therefore, I have decided that from now on the tricycle should not be issued to new claimants and that it should be phased out over a period of about five years. After the present annual contracts with the two firms of tricycle manufacturers are completed in March 1977, we shall be placing one last order. We shall be discussing the details of this with the manufacturers as soon as possible. Existing tricycle holders will of course be able to keep their vehicles until they wear out; they will also be able to have them replaced, when they wear out, for so long as spare parts and replacements are still available.
We intend to provide that anyone under pension age who holds a tricycle issued under the old vehicle scheme should be able to switch to a mobility allowance. We shall be bringing before the House amending legislation to enable mobility allowances awarded to beneficiaries under the old scheme to continue in payment without age limit. In addition, the proposed legislation would enable tricycle holders already over pension age and those receiving a private car allowance under the old scheme to be able to switch to a mobility allowance. This is simply a transitional concession to ensure that tricycle holders do not lose because of the age limit under the mobility scheme.
We plan to complete the take-on for the mobility allowance during 1979 and the phasing will be such that the proposals I have just announced will not incur any net additional public expenditure.
There is a statutory obligation to consider, in 1976–77 and in each subsequent tax year, whether the mobility allowance should be increased, having regard to the national economic situation as a whole, the general standard of living and any other relevant factors. My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State told the House on 7th April that, as the allowance was introduced last January at a 25 per cent. higher level than the £4 originally announced, it will not be increased in the impending uprating of benefits in November. At the next review, however, we shall certainly aim to restore and, if possible, improve its value.
Existing rights to cars, whether for war pensioners or others, will not be affected. Indeed, I am glad to be able to announce an extension in these rights. My hon. Friend promised to consider sympathetically the type of case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller). In future, a disabled mother will no longer have her car withdrawn when her child reaches the age of 14 if this child is mentally or physically handicapped so as to need extensive parental care beyond that age.
Further, where a beneficiary has been awarded a vehicle or private car allowance because he needed it for employment purposes, and he ceases to be employed, we shall not in future withdraw either the vehicle or the private car allowance, or the mobility allowance where it replaces one of these.
My Department and the Scottish and Welsh Offices will be taking all the necessary steps to explain the changes and their effect to individual disabled people and will keep in close touch with the Central Council for the Disabled and the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the Minister aware that we recognise that this is an extremely difficult area of policy, particularly at a time of public expenditure constraints? Does he realise that we believe it right in the longer term but in the great majority of cases cash rather than hardware should be the form of aid given to the disabled in terms of mobility considerations?
May I put four specific questions to the Minister on his statement? Will he tell the House whether the Department now regards the trike as safe or not, or is it just that EEC standards are higher than those which his Department is prepared to accept? Secondly, since the value of the mobility allowance after tax is less than half the cost of providing the tricycle, will he now give an idea of the size of the 1977 uprating? Does he realise that if the mobility allowance after tax is much less than the value of the tricycle, his statement will mean that a substantial number of disabled people can only look forward to being without any form of mobility because they will not be able to afford a car?
Thirdly, will he explain a little more fully the arrangements announced for extending mobility allowances beyond retirement to those who have trikes while denying the allowance to those who do not possess them, even though entitled to do so? Is that the position and, if so, does it not draw an invidious distinction?
Fourthly, is it not clear that as a result of the phasing out of trikes there will be a substantially increased demand for converted cars? What steps is the Department taking to try to secure with the manufacturers a suitable design of a four-wheeler so that there will be a proper vehicle for those who wish to have them? Will he say something about the GKN Sankey design which was brought to the attention of the House a few weeks ago?

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's introductory comments. It is a difficult and complex problem to meet so many different needs of the disabled. I feel proud that a Labour Government in a short period of time have introduced not only a mobility allowance but a non-contributory invalidity pension and also an invalid care allowance. This is one new method of helping disabled people with their problems. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that cash rather than hardware should be the approach. That does not mean that those with entitlement to cars will in any way be affected by anything I have said today.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the trike is safe. We must recognise that facts have already been made


public showing that trike drivers are three times as much at risk of injury in any one year as car drivers in general and that in covering fewer miles the risk per mile is seven times greater. That is one consideration. The report of the Department of the Environment on the subject of the maintenance of these vehicles discloses disturbing information, but it is important to recognise that many trike drivers have driven these vehicles for many years and with that experience are extremely safe drivers. Evidence shows that most of the safety problems occur in respect of those who are fairly new to the driving of such vehicles. That is an important matter to recognise.
Secondly, I was asked about the value of the mobility allowance. I cannot at this stage give figures of the uprating, which will occur substantially more than a year from now. I have to bear in mind the statutory obligations, the economic situation, the change in the value of money and other factors. It would be unwise now to announce what will be the rate of the mobility allowance, but it will show an improvement in terms of real value. Again, that is an important matter to recognise.
Thirdly, as for the eligibility of those beyond pension age, I have already announced that those who already have trikes and who will be allowed to continue with them after pension age must be allowed to continue with the alternative, which is mobility allowance, after pension age. Obviously this will produce pressure for the provision to be extended to those who do not have trikes but who have a mobility allowance that ends at pensionable age. I shall have to resist that proposal because of the many pressures on public expenditure at present.
The last question concerned specialised vehicles. We shall have to look into the future. I cannot make any statement at this stage about the efficacy of four-wheelers, let alone other vehicles. This is a matter which I shall continue to discuss with the Central Council for the Disabled, which has been extremely helpful in this context.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Minister aware that there will be some sympathy with him in having to make this statement because he has inherited a very

long history of ministerial and departmental evasion on the use of these trikes and the problem of mobility facilities for disabled people. Does he now accept that the cost argument has been false because the cost of running these trikes is often higher than the cost of running a conventional car, particularly in constituencies such as mine, which are a long way from service centres?
Would it not be more honest to say that the disabled are among the victims of the expenditure cuts since the mobility allowance, however uprated, so long as it is in the present region is no substitute for the supply of a vehicle? Is that not a stark fact? Is not the trouble that he is unwilling to face up to Lardy Sharp's recommendation about the need to assess the individual needs of the disabled and the varying demands of different disabled people?
Will the right hon. Gentleman enlarge on his last reply? Is the Department promoting the design of a new and adequate vehicle to replace the trike?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a large number of questions. It is sheer nonsense to talk about an evasion of responsibility by the Labour Government. That Government have shown a great sense of responsibility.

Mr. David Steel: There is a long history.

Mr. Ennals: Yes, there is a long history, but that does not include the two-and-a-half years in which the Labour Government have probaby done more about safety matters than have any other Government. We introduced an examination to be carried out by the Department of the Environment simply because we wanted everybody to know the situation. We have now published that material in a document that contains some disturbing information.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of running trikes. Despite the hon. Gentleman's remarks, it is interesting to note that the vast majority of people who had an entitlement to trikes in recent times since the introduction of the mobility allowance have opted for a mobility allowance at the amount offered. Therefore, the public have proved the hon. Gentleman to be incorrect. Disabled


people, including those with driving difficulties, have benefited enormously from the efforts of the present Government. There are at present roughly 100,000 people who will be eligible for the mobility allowance.

Mr. Pavitt: May I assure my right hon. Friend that Labour Members are well aware of what has been done by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with his responsibilities for disabled people? May I stress that, despite public expenditure problems, no economic barriers should be erected in this area of responsibility. In respect of all the peripheral problems of mobility for the disabled I urge my right hon. Friend to press on with the advances, an outline of which he has announced today. I also urge him to take note of the Early-Day Motion which has attracted more than 100 signatures, including one from the Opposition Benches, in respect of mobility in terms of the blind. It is disgraceful that the blind are excluded from mobility assistance because, of course, even though they cannot use trikes or cars for themselves, they still need to get about.

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) for his tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibilities for the disabled. The disabled people of this country, including those about whom we have been talking this morning, are greatly indebted to my hon. Friend for his absolute determination to look after their interests and to press his bosses—successive Secretaries of State—to fulfil their responsibilities. Long may he continue in that rôle. In spite of our public expenditure problems we shall give priority to the disabled. It was interesting that in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday he announced that in spite of current difficulties we would be ensuring an up-rating of the mobility allowance next year.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has answered a parliamentary Question today about the phasing of the next group into mobility allowance. I am certain that many people would sympathise with the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South concerning blind people. Blindness can

be a contributory factor in ensuring an entitlement to the mobility allowance. Of itself, it is not adequate and I am afraid, much though people would like us to do so, that at this time of public expenditure constraint we cannot alter the situation. It is important that we should ensure that those who are entitled to benefit receive it and that we deal with this issue as sympathetically as we can. Inevitably we shall have to postpone further action that would make deep inroads into public expenditure.

Mr. Boscawen: Will the right hon. Gentleman ignore the ignorant remarks of the Leader of the Liberal Party? Does he agree that it is impossible to please everyone on this subject? Does he realise that I believe that he is doing the right thing? Both major parties have contributed a great deal to this difficult problem. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be many gaps in the policy which he has announced, one of which will concern the 16-year-olds who are unable to drive a four-wheeler and who will not in future have a three-wheeled vehicle? Somehow those gaps have to be filled. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there will be a good deal of pressure from those who reach retirement age and have their mobility allowance taken from them? Many other difficulties will arise. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I believe that he is doing the right thing by allowing those who wish to keep the trike to do so?

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As he said, this is not a party issue. I much regret the remarks made by the Leader of the Liberal Party. It is impossible to please everyone and I appreciate the comments of the hon. Gentleman, who feels that we have done the right thing. I would like to make one thing clear. Given the preference of new claimants for the mobility allowance, we expect to be able to maintain the supply of trikes, for those who want to keep them, for at least five years and possibly a good deal longer. We shall be improving the maintenance arrangements.
We cannot predict how many people might still want a specialised vehicle at the end of that period. The mobility allowance will be available to them and some will qualify for help under the


fares-to-work scheme. When the time approaches we shall assess the extent of the need for specialised vehicles for the remaining vehicle scheme beneficiaries and see which alternative vehicles, and electrically powered wheelchairs, are available on the home and world markets.

Mrs. Millie Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great pleasure that his announcement will give, not only to the general body of the disabled but to the specific classes that he has mentioned as additionally coming within the scheme, in particular my constituent on whose behalf I spoke in an Adjournment debate not many months ago? May I express my thanks to my right hon. Friend for his announcement and also to the Minister with responsibilities for the disabled who I know has been fighting behind the scenes ever since this matter was first drawn to his attention—and to you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me the Adjournment debate?
In saying that cash and not hardware should be his motto, my right hon. Friend will, I hope, bear in mind that if people are receiving supplementary benefit allowances they are unlikely to have the cash to make use of the mobility allowance. This is a factor which should be borne carefully in mind.
While I deeply welcome the fact that a mother who is disabled and has sole care of a mentally or physically disabled child will be eligible for the four-wheeled vehicle, may I ask my right hon. Friend to make clear what will happen to those people using trikes and who will still need one after the present stocks have been exhausted? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he does not make this situation clear it will seem that there is to be a serious gap in the provision?

Mr. Ennals: Although my hon. Friend has thanked me and my hon. Friend, I want to thank her because this is a prime example of the way in which a Member of Parliament, by seizing on a human situation, pressing it forward, and badgering the Minister concerned, can achieve something. This may not affect hundreds of thousands of people but it will do a very great deal. I would not have made this announcement today had it not been for the pressure applied by my hon. Friend. I am genuinely grateful to her.
She has referred to the mobility allowance and the effect on supplementary benefit recipients. One of the reasons why the mobility allowance is taxable is to ensure that its maximum benefit goes to those who are in the greatest need. My hon. Friend also asks me about the future for those who own trikes. I draw her attention to my reply to the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen).

Mr. Powell: Can it be assumed that the same arrangements as usual apply precisely to Northern Ireland and, if so, why was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland not expressly associated with the statement? Generally, as one who had to administer the old dispensation 15 years ago, may I say that the concept of mobility aid as an appliance under the National Health Service was always doomed to be unsatisfactory and that the substitution of what the right hon. Gentleman calls cash for hardware will gradually enable the majority, though inevitably not all, of the anomalies to be eliminated?

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks with great experience as a former Minister who held these responsibilities. His conclusions are, therefore, doubly important. I can assure him that the statement which I have made applies in full to Northern Ireland. I was speaking on behalf of the entirety of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Urwin: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his statement is a further indication of the care which the Government have displayed for the problems of the disadvantaged and the disabled and that, contrary to what the Leader of the Liberal Party has said, the Government have done more to assist the disabled than have any previous Government? Does he accept that the appointment of a Minister with responsibilities for the disabled was an inspiration and has been proved to be such over the past two and a half years? Can my right hon. Friend say how favourably or otherwise we compare, in a comprehensive sense, with members of the European Economic Community in our attitude towards disabled people?

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. With no sense of modesty I say that I was one of the first to argue


publicly, some years ago, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) should, when returned to power, appoint a Minister with responsibilities for the disabled. I know exactly whom I had in mind. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend for making this appointment when he became Prime Minister again.
It is true that we have not always led Europe by any means in terms of provision for the disabled. Now we have forms of assistance which are more sensitive and selective and which try to meet the variations of human need better than almost any other country in the EEC. We have had to do—and we have done—a lot of catching up in the past two and a half years. That is why I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.

Sir John Hall: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the action he is now taking to deal with this very complex problem. Is he aware that many people are taking mobility allowance rather than the trike because of the trike's great unpopularity? When the new mobility allowance is announced next year, is it likely to bear any real relation to the cost of providing personal transport?

Mr. Ennals: I am afraid that I cannot anticipate what the level of the mobility allowance will be when I fulfil my statutory obligation to review it. The House will simply have to wait for my statement on that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the unpopularity of the trike. It is true that the majority of those who have the trike would have preferred a four-wheeled vehicle. That would have caused enormous problems. But there are some disabled for whom, by reason of their disability, the trike has proved much more suitable than a four-wheeled vehicle. This is why, in announcing my decision to phase out the trikes and not in future to award trikes, I have gone as far as I can to ensure over many years forward that those at present driving trikes will have their needs met.

Mr. Woodall: As a former miner and one representing the mining community,

which perhaps has more than its fair share of disabled, I ask my right hon. Friend to accept from me that his statement will be widely welcomed, both in the mining areas and in the country generally, particularly in the light of the economic stringency which the country is facing.

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not think that I have ever made a statement which has been so warmly welcomed.

Mr. Rathbone: May I add my voice to the welcome but press the right hon. Gentleman on the question of cash versus mechanics on two scores? First, there is to some degree a bias against the poorest in switching from a vehicle, of whatever sort, to a mobility allowance. Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman detect in many of the questions a general concern that not enough vigour and impetus will be behind the search for another vehicle to take the place of the tricycle, because there will always be cases in which a vehicle will be preferable for the recipient?

Mr. Ennals: I indicated earlier that I would be carrying out research to see which alternative vehicles and electric-powered wheelchairs might be available on the home and world markets to meet a situation which may arise some years from now. I positively do not agree that the mobility allowance produces any bias against the poorest. As I have said, the fact that it is a taxable allowance means that it brings the maximum benefit to those who are poorest. In that way, it enables us to give as large an allowance as we can, because it is fairly distributed.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it is the overwhelming opinion of hon. Members that blindness should be accepted as a loco-motor disability and that the blind should be included for mobility allowance? Will he confirm that his Department accepts this proposition in principle but that it is the Treasury which is reluctant to concede the point and to include blind people in the benefit?

Mr. Ennals: I never make divisive statements as between one Department of the Government and another. We are united, and we are united in wanting to do more than at present if it is possible


to do. My hon. Friend received an Answer on 6th July which outlined some of the additional assistance available to blind people. I understand the wish of blind people to be involved in the mobility allowance. I have had representations about it in my constituency. But that matter will have to be for the future and cannot be dealt with in this statement.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any progress is being made in developing a design and producing a vehicle which would be acceptable in all the EEC countries so that we could get the benefit of larger-scale production?

Mr. Ennals: To the best of my knowledge, there are no three-wheelers available in the markets of our fellow members of the EEC which we could have taken on as a successor to the trike. But research is going on, we shall be associated with it and we shall keep closely in touch with our European partners.

Mr. Joseph Dean: I, too, welcome my righ hon. Friend's statement. Was it not a little unfortunate that the Leader of the Liberal Party was rather carping in his criticism of the resources which the Government are making available for those involved in this matter? Can my right hon. Friend indicate in global terms the resources which have been made available by the Labour Government, because this subject has a slightly political context, as compared with the resources made available by the last Conservative Government?

Mr. Ennals: I suppose that if one is Leader of the Liberal Party one has to search hard for issues on which to criticise this Government, but it is surprising that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) chose this subject on which to do so, particularly as the Government are trebling public expenditure on mobility. This is a very important move and an enormous advance in trying to meet the many and varied needs of disabled people.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to go further on the question of specialised transport for the

disabled who need it? Is he aware that it is not sufficient to point out the large number of people who would have trikes available but who choose mobility allowance, and those who choose, for their own good reasons, not to switch from trikes? Will the right hon. Gentleman not go more deeply into the suggestion for developing specialised transport which would be suitable both in this country and abroad, and also ensure that it is not just on three wheels but on four, since most of us feel that a three-wheeled vehicle is out of date?

Mr. Ennals: I do not think that I can add to my reply to the hon. Member for Wells.

BILL PRESENTED

HEALTH EDUCATION (TELEVISION)

Mr. Laurie Pavitt presented a Bill to require television authorities to provide facilities for the purpose of transmitting programmes relating to health education; and to establish advisory bodies in connection therewith; and for related purposes; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22nd October and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3(1)(b), the Motion relating to the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: May I, Mr. Speaker, take a few seconds to thank the Leader of the House for having tabled this motion, which enables the same degree of unlimited opportunity of debate to be accorded to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland as those representing the remainder of the United Kingdom enjoy in a corresponding context in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill?

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MEMBERS' REMUNERATION AND ALLOWANCES

11.38 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,
That in the opinion of this House—

(1) the salary payable to any Member at the rate of £5,750 a year and the salary payable to any Member at the rate of £3,700 a year while he is the Comptroller or Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, a Junior Lord of the Treasury or an Assistant Government or Opposition Whip should be increased by £312 a year from 13th June 1976;
(2) the sum of £112·50 a year with which a Member is credited by way of supplement in pursuance of paragraph (5) of the resolution of the House of 22nd July 1975 about Members' salaries and pensions should, in the case of a Member who draws the increase in salary mentioned in paragraph (1) above, be reduced by £15·60 a year from 13th June 1976 and, in the case of a Member who draws a fraction only of the increase, be reduced by that fraction of £15·60 a year from that date;
(3) the annual limit of £3,200 on secretarial allowance should be increased to £3,450 for the year ending on 31st March 1977 and to £3,512 for any subsequent year ending on 31st March.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment to paragraph (1) standing in the name of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), and with it the first amendment to paragraph (2) may be debated. I have not selected the second amendment to paragraph (2).

Mr. Foot: This and the other motion on the Order Paper, relating to junior Ministers, are designed to give effect to the proposals that I put before the House in my statement on 12th July. I believe that that statement was welcomed by most hon. Members, but a number of points have been raised on the Government's proposals, so I think that it might be helpful if I deal with those first before explaining briefly the substance of the two motions.

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we having a single debate on both motions? If so, would you indicate whether you

intend to select the amendment to the second motion?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. If we are to discuss the two motions together—and if that is the will of the House, so be it—I should announce that I have not selected the amendment to the second motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

Mr. Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised the matter with you because the Leader of the House indicated that he thought that we were taking both motions together. It seems to some of us that they represent different subject matters and that it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to have a separate debate on each.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether there has been any agreement about taking the two motions together.

Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully appreciate what the hon. Member has said. It is certainly not my right or wish to exclude two debates if hon. Members want them and think that it is better to do it that way. I want to make my remarks at the beginning cover both motions because unfortunately I have to leave the debate for a short period. It is unavoidable and I hope to return later. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, will be ready to intervene and to wind up the debate. It is for the House to decide whether it wants discussion on the two motions taken separately.

Mr. John Peyton: I understand the difficulty which the Leader of the House is in. If he applies his remarks to both motions there will be no objection from us, but it would be helpful if the debates, subject to that, could be separate.

Mr. Speaker: If the House is not agreed about taking the motions together, they must be taken separately.

Mr. Foot: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. If some of my comments stray over the two motions, I hope that I shall be forgiven.
Some Members have questioned the need for the £8,500 limit; others have asked how it will work. The short answer to the first question is that we need the limit to comply with the guidelines of the current pay policy. I explained that hon. Members who have earnings from other sources which together with their parliamentary emoluments take their total earnings to £8,500 or more would be asked to forgo the £6 increase in full. That statement was based on the understanding upon which the House accepted the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill. In that debate I said that no one earning £8,500 a year or more should take an increase of any kind in the coming year. Guidance to that effect has been issued by the Department of Employment and the Department has advised that the obligation to comply with the pay limits where earnings are derived from more than one source rests with the individual concerned. This is the general way in which the Department have given advice and I am sure that hon. Members would not expect to be treated any differently.
I would not seek to deny that under the present voluntary policy there may be some people in some walks of life who have received a £6 increase, when, strictly speaking, they should not have had it. An hon. Member's job is, however, unique. He is paid for full-time service but he can, quite properly, choose also to follow other remunerative pursuits. I think that MPs should be especially careful in this matter of outside earnings. Whatever views they may take about an incomes policy, I believe that all of us would wish to be especially careful in the application to ourselves of the policy we have sought to impose on others.
How then will the limit work? The responsibility for deciding whether the increase in salary would be paid or not will rest solely with hon. Members themselves and no one else. The Accountant will simply ask them to let him know whether the supplement should be withheld in full or in part. For this purpose parliamentary emoluments will include the Member's salary, London supplement, if payable, and the special pensions supplement introduced last July. Other earnings will include income from, for example, directorships, salaried appointments, professional fees and sponsorship

payments. As I said in the House on 12th July, this does not mean that we are suggesting that differentiated rates should be a permanent feature of parliamentary remuneration. This question is a matter for the House itself to decide. At this moment the differentiated earnings are the consequence of the rough justice of the pay policy.

Sir John Hall: Could the Leader of the House say whether other earnings will include journalism and appearances on television? The payments for these activities may vary from year to year and it is possible that in the current year an hon. Member may earn enough from these activities to bring his salary to £8,500 or more?

Mr. Foot: Yes, that would be covered. I shall say something about this matter later.
There is the question of over what period the total earnings should be assessed. The £6 is payable from 13th June 1976 and it becomes payable from that date provided Members' earnings were currently running at the rate of less than £8,500 a year. Where outside earnings are received on a regular basis it will be up to hon. Members to assess whether their total rate of all earnings at that date exceeded £8,500 or not. In the case of spasmodic earnings, such as fees—and I think this covers the hon. Member's point—Members would assess their total earnings over the previous 12 months, that is, from their last pay increase on 13th June 1975. I stress, however, that this is general guidance and that it is for Members themselves to assess whether they should forgo the pay increase, or part of it, in the light of this guidance.
Another question that has been asked is why the £312 should not be added to the proper rate of salary of £8,000 as the rate for pension purposes. When the proper rate of salary was increased last year from £4,500 to £8,000 the review body recommended that it should be reviewed biennially. The House accepted that the actual rate payable should be restricted to £5,750. The £312 increase now proposed is a further step towards implementing the full rate of £8,000. Meanwhile, the rate of £8,000 stands as the rate recommended by the Review Body as at 13th June 1975 on the basis


that it should be reviewed biennially. The question of increasing it is a separate matter which will have to be considered at the appropriate time.
In that connection, may I refer to the motion which my predecessor put down last year to give hon. Members an opportunity to express their views on whether it was desirable in principle I emphasise in principle—to link Members' pay with that of a specified grade in the public service. The Review Body had recommended against any such linkage. The House nonetheless resolved that in its opinion it was desirable in principle that there should be a link with a point on the scale paid to an Assistant Secretary in the public service, not later than three months after the next General Election, and that annually until that date Members' salaries should be increased by not less than the amount Assistant Secretaries received. In the event, Assistant Secretaries have received nothing under the current round of the pay policy as they are caught by the £8,500 limit.
The point of substance, however, is that the resolution has, of itself, no enabling effect. My predecessor made it clear when he introduced the motion that the matter would have to be considered again by the House before any proposal could be implemented. He said that on 22nd July last year and in the light of the wording of the resolution as amended I think that must still be the situation.
The determination of the fundamental basis of hon. Members' pay is a matter which will have to be resolved by the House when circumstances permit, and the Government will pursue this question as soon as they can. At this time, however, incomes policy rules out any progress on this difficult question.
I now turn to the motions which I have put down to implement the action which the Government consider to be right at the present time. The first is designed to implement the £6 a week increase in Members' pay and their secretarial allowance. Paragraph (1) of the motion increases the Member's salary of £5,750 by £312. It also provides for the 16 Government and Opposition Whips who are paid an office-holder's salary of £4,000 to receive an increase of £312 in

their parliamentary salary of £3,700. The motion does not include a reference to the £8,500 limit because, as I have explained to the House, we are applying these arrangements in accordance with the voluntary principle underlying the pay policy.

Mr. Peyton: Will the Leader of the House make clear that the arrangements are that certain people will be made specifically by law entitled to an increase, but that they will be told quietly and informally that they must not take it?

Mr. Foot: It could be described in that way, but I do not think that that is accurate and it omits the other part of the proposition, which derives from the policy which the House accepted a year ago, that there should be a voluntary arrangement to cover pay of all kinds for all people and that part of that arrangement should be a limit of £8,500. It is perfectly true that that was not a legally enforceable affair. The House came to the conclusion that it was better to put the policy on a voluntary basis.
The motion does not contain a reference to the £8,500 limit because the arrangements are being applied on voluntary basis—

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: If one of the junior Whips or a Minister insists on taking his increase, to which he is entitled, even though that would be breaching the Government's incomes policy, will he be relieved of his office or will he be allowed to remain in office?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that any such question will arise and therefore I do not think that these difficulties need to be faced.
Paragraph (2) of the motion is necessary to reduce the pension contribution supplement which was introduced last year to provide for public funds to bear the Member's 5 per cent. pension contribution of £112·50 on the difference between the actual rate of £5,750 and the pensionable rate of £8,000. As that gap will now be reduced by £312, the special pension contribution must be correspondingly reduced by 5 per cent., that is by £15·60. Members who forgo the £6 a week increase will of course not suffer any reduction in contribution supplement, and those who take only part of the


increase will surrender only the corresponding part of the supplement.
Paragraph (3) provides for a straight increase in the secretarial allowance rate, adjusted for accounting purposes to coincide with the financial year. The rules for reimbursement of expenditure are unchanged, and any increase paid to secretaries or research assistants within the total of the £6 limit for full-time assistance can be claimed within the new limit of £3,512 for the allowance.
Amendments to this motion have been tabled by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) whereby Members would not benefit at all from the £6 policy but would wait until 1st October this year and then draw the £208 maximum allowable under the next round of the policy. As the £8,500 limit will not then apply, I recognise that what the hon. Member proposes would avoid differentiated rates. I do not, however, recommend that hon. Members should support the amendment or that the House should follow the course proposed by the hon. Member. The urgent need for many Members with little or no other source of outside earnings is an immediate increase of £312 a year. to which they are entitled under the pay policy. I do not believe that the House will wish, for other reasons, to deny the £6 a week increase where it is most needed.

Mr. Gow: Has the motion the force of law? Is the resolution sufficient to increase remuneration in the way the Leader of the House has been outlining, because we have a draft Statutory Instrument dealing with ministerial salaries? Does the motion authorise the spending of public money in the way the right hon. Gentleman has outlined?

Mr. Foot: If I am mistaken about this matter, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me when he speaks. But, if the resolution is passed, the money will be provided, and that is the purpose of the operation.

Sir John Hall: The Leader of the House was expressing his opposition to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) on the ground that this would deny some hon Members the immediate help of £312 a year which in some cases could be urgently needed. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that this goes back

only to 13th June this year, that the gap in time, therefore, will be a matter of a few months, and that after tax differences the amount will be very marginal. Would it not therefore be better to deter it in the way that my hon. Friend suggests?

Mr. Foot: I think that it would lead to considerable confusion all round and would raise some invidious questions—

Mr. Nigel Lawson: So does what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing.

Mr. Foot: The increase given to Members of Parliament last year dealt with a situation which had accumulated for many years. If we were to follow the course suggested by the hon. Member for Blaby, Members of Parliament would never have been entitled to the £6 increase, and they would have missed a whole year—

Mr. Lawson: A good idea.

Mr. Foot: That would be unjust to the Members concerned and would give a false impression of the position. I believe that Members of Parliament were entitled last year to the increase they had then, and I believe that they are entitled to the £6 increase now so long as they do not offend the £8,500 limit. They will also be entitled next year to the 4½ per cent. increase, or whatever it may be, under the new policy. If we were to follow the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, it would confuse the arrangements and would suggest that Members were never entitled to the £6.

Sir John Hall: Is it not the case that it would be impossible for Members to get a further increase until 12 months after the last increase? In that case, unless it is proposed to have a stage 3 and to continue with a limit of this kind 12 months from now, the amendment would mean only deferment of a few months of the 4 per cent., with Members losing no more than a small fraction of the previous increase.

Mr. Foot: We would be applying a different principle to Members of Parliament from that applied to the rest of the country. Under the pay policy, Members will be entitled to the 4½ per cent. or the equivalent figure next year. The hon Member is proposing that this


should happen sooner and that would be a different application of the policy for MPs. We are seeking to apply the policy to Members of Parliament just as it applies to everyone else.
I understand the grounds on which Members do not wish to embark upon differentiation. This question must be settled as an issue of principle, and not by a side wind. It would be a great mistake for the House to say that because of the introduction of differentiation we objected so strongly to the £8,500 limit that we were going to adopt a completely different system. That would be quite wrong, because since the principle has been applied in other cases, and since the Government have recommended it to other people, it would be very strange if the House of Commons took a different line.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: There is a somewhat different aspect to this point which could be even more important than the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall) was pursuing. Throughout his speech so far, the Lord President has used the word "entitlement". As I understand it, the £6 is a ceiling and the Government have denied repeatedly in the past that it is an entitlement. The Lord President may be deceiving the country yet again by using that word.

Mr. Foot: I am not deceiving the country. The Government will be paying the money and they will be applying the same principle, if the House approves, to hon. Members as they have applied in other cases. The Government were not bound to make the proposal for a £6 increase, but we think that it is a proper arrangement and that hon. Members should be dealt with in the same way as the overwhelming bulk of people in the country.

Mr. Ridley: If it is so important to apply the same principles to us as to people outside, why do we pay ourselves pensions on the basis of a very much higher salary than we actually receive?

Mr. Foot: All these matters were discussed last year. The report at that tin-le recommended considerably higher pay for hon. Members than the House thought desirable. However, hon. Mem-

bers agreed that the pension increases should be implemented and there was a strong case for that, particularly in view of the injustice suffered by hon. Members in this respect in the past.
All this was dealt with last year. We now have to decide the application of the present policy. We had to consider whether to apply a different policy to hon. Members than to other people because of the objections to differentiation, but the Government thought that it was quite wrong to maintain such a distinction.

Mr. Rathbone: I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my previous intervention. Is the £6 pay limit now to be regarded as an entitlement and is any future pay limit to be understood in that way in this Chamber and outside?

Mr. Foot: I do not want there to be any confusion. Under the pay policy, the £6 was a maximum, but it was not fixed by law. It did not mean that every employer was compelled to pay the £6. It would have been open to us not to make the £6 recommendation and to have suggested a lower figure within the pay policy. However, we are recommending that the £6 should be paid.
I understand what has been said about the wish to take the two motions separately, but I should like to comment on the second motion, not in an attempt to limit the debate but to anticipate it. I have to be away from the House soon after I have spoken, though I hope to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) before I go.
The second motion seeks approval to a draft Order in Council which will authorise a salary increase of £312 for 13 junior Ministers and office holders in the House of Lords. The increase will be subject to the £8,500 limit on earnings from all sources in the same way as for Members of this House. The salaries of these appointments are controlled by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, but amendments to the rates in that Act may be effected by means of an Order in Council subject to a draft of the Order being approved by resolution in each House of Parliament.
The Members of the other place who are affected by this Order are, in the main.


the Government and Opposition Whips, but I should like to draw attention to two points. The first is that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is not a Member of either House but his salary as a Law Officer of the Crown is controlled by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act.
The second point is that the Order has to provide for an increase in salary for all Parliamentary Secretaries, but in practice it will be paid only to the two Parliamentary Secretaries who sit in the other place. To comply with the £8,500 limit, the salaries of Parliamentary Secretaries who sit in the Commons, and draw a parliamentary salary of £3,700, will remain at £5,500 a year under the powers in Section 4 (2) of that Act, which enable salaries to be restricted. The effective date of these increases will be the date when the Order is signed.
Finally, Members may wish to know that the Top Salaries Review Body's Report, about which questions may be asked, is likely to be available next week.

Mr. Peyton: I did not intend to intervene in the debate immediately after the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. I wish to hear first what some of my hon. Friends have to say.
I sympathise with the Leader of the House in his difficulty in explaining these matters to hon. Members, but I cannot understand why it is necessary to provide in law for the payment of all Parliamentary Secretaries when we know at the time of doing so that it is not the intention to let most of them have the money.

Mr. Foot: We are letting some of them have the money and, in order to be able to do so, we have to proceed in this manner, with a strict regard to the legal provisions that are required.
If an error has crept into my remarks on this subject, I am sure that it will be corrected later. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a hybrid Bill."] Whatever else I understand, I certainly understand hybridity now.
In my statement on 12th July I had to indicate that we should not be able to accept any recommendations from the Top Salaries Review Body that would go outside the pay policy because I did not want to arouse any expectations in any quarter on that point. However, the

report will be published soon and the House will be able to judge these matters.
I know that some hon. Members believe that the subject of our pay and salaries is a difficult and invidious matter for us to discuss in the House. I do not think that we should have so many hesitations. The demand for proper payment for hon. Members has a long and honourable history. There have been bicentennial celebrations in the United States this year, but 1776 should not be famous only for the Declaration of Independence.
In that year, Major John Cartwright wrote a pamphlet entitled "Take Your Choice" in which he demanded reforms of Parliament, universal suffrage and secret ballots—all causes which were fought for outside this House long before they were fought for inside. Major Cartwright also demanded in his pamphlet payment for hon. Members, but we had to wait a long time before that suggestion was put into effect.
That illustrates what I was saying earlier in the week, in a slightly more controversial atmosphere, that many of the liberties of hon. Members have had to be fought for. I make no apology for saying that the Government wish to ensure that hon. Members are fairly treated in the payments made to them. The House will want to look at these matters carefully and we shall take into account what is said by hon. Members in all parts of the House. However, we think that what we have suggested is a fair and sensible way of dealing with the problem this year.

12.11 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), leave out from 'by' to the end of the paragraph and to add instead thereof:
£208 a year from 1st October 1976'.
The Leader of the House has said that Members' pay is perhaps an invidious and difficult subject. We would all agree with that. Incomes policy is an absurd and Alice-in-Wonderland subject and when the two are thrown together, reasoned debate becomes almost impossible.
I shall, however, begin by addressing myself directly to the amendment and then make one or two wider observations, all within a fairly brief span. The purpose


of the amendment, as the Leader of the House fairly pointed out, is to get out of the acute difficulty into which he himself got when explaining how it was that there was to be one rate of pay for some hon. Members and another rate of pay for others and, moreover, that this would be applied in a curious way not being applied elsewhere.
This problem of how it should be applied is indeed difficult. But the principle is in any case so offensive—that different hon. Members should be paid a different salary—that it seems to be wholly right that we should get out of the difficulty by this simple device of going straight to stage 2 of the incomes policy on 1st October next.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that a worker in a factory who works full time should receive exactly the same as another who works part time?

Mr. Lawson: I intended to address myself to that later, but I shall do so now.

Mr. Ridley: I have here the Register of Members' Interests and I presume that it defines the "full-timers and" part-timers "among us. Would the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire), who is always in the House to make a speech and who serves on every Committee, be called a full-timer or a part-timer?

Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that pertinent observation about the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire) who, I am sure, is the sort of full-time Member whom the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has in mind. The House has never accepted the principle that so-called full-time Members should be paid more than so-called part-time Members. I know that it has often been discussed, and some hon. Members have made the suggestion, but it has not been accepted by the Boyle Committee or by the House. It has not been advocated by the Leader of the House today. I think that it is a red herring. The hon. Member for Keighley may pursue it as much as he likes. He may try to persuade the House that such a suggestion should be

accepted, but I remind him that it has not been accepted by the House, or even by the Government.
There is implicit in what the hon. Gentleman said the assumption that hon. Members are full-time Members simply because they have no outside interests and, because of that, it is implied that they are doing a more worthwhile job in the House and serving their constituents better. Of course we can distinguish among hon. Members. It would be invidious and wholly wrong to mention instances, but we can distinguish between those hon. Members who serve their constituents and the House well and those who do not. However, I would say that there is no correlation between that and those hon. Members who happen to have outside interests and those who do not. The hon. Member for Keighley may make a distinction between genuine full-time Members and genuine part-time Members if he wishes, but it has nothing whatever to do with outside earnings.
The purpose of the amendment is to get out of the ridiculous muddle that the Leader of the House got into by suggesting that stage 1 of the incomes policy—the £6 increase with its cut-off point at £8,500—should be applied. The amendment suggests that we go straight to stage 2 on 1st October.
There are two objections to the Governments proposal quite apart from this invidious distinction. One is that it is retrospective: it applies from 13th June. I do not think that it is a good thing in principle that we should award ourselves retrospective pay increases of that sort. I know that the last increase was retrospective, but at least there was the argument that is was backdated to the date on which the Boyle Committee Report was published. There was an excuse then but there is no excuse in this instance. Furthermore, it is rather ironic that it was on 22nd July—almost exactly a year ago today—that we first had the debate and vote on the White Paper "The Attack on Inflation", which embodied the pay limit of £6 and the very next business of the House on that same evening was to award ourselves an increase very much in excess of that.

Mr. Foot: Whatever arguments the hon. Gentleman may wish to make, it


would be quite wrong for him to suggest to people outside the House that retrospective payments are being made to Members of Parliament and that in some way this is an offence against the policy. The proposal is to make the £6 payable on exactly the same basis as it was made to the rest of the public. It is not retrospective at all in that sense.

Mr. Lawson: I am not suggesting that we should adopt the standards that apply elsewhere. I am aware that there are backdatings in payments elsewhere but as Members of Parliament we have to be particularly careful and, therefore, we are particularly open to censure when we award ourselves a pay increase which we then back date a month or more.

Sir John Hall: Generally speaking I would find myself in agreement with what my hon. Friend says, but on this occasion it seems to me that he wants to put Members of Parliament in a much worse position than most other employed persons. Most of the wage increases that we award ourselves are retrospective and go back a very long way indeed.

Mr. Lawson: I may not have carried my hon. Friend on my first point, but I hope that I shall be able to carry him on the rest of my argument. I was saying that we awarded ourselves an increase from £4,500 to £5,750 on 22nd July last year immediately after we had approved the White Paper embodying what in shorthand terms may be called a semi-statutory ceiling of £6 a week.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It was not semi-statutory.

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) says that it was not semi-statutory. Since there is no strict definition of the term "semi-statutory" the right hon. Gentleman can use it in one way and I can use it in another. I was using it to mean a voluntary policy breaches of which would incur certain penalties.

Mr. Powell: That is not correct as far as the citizen is concerned. All that it did was to enable certain contracts to be broken without the natural consequences following in certain circumstances. That was all.

Mr. Lawson: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it also contained provisions concerning the Price Code which affected the employers and paid certain increases above the limit. I think that my expression of semi-statutory, although it has no technically precise meaning, carries a clear description of the nature of the policy.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Would not my hon. Friend get out of his difficulty by adopting the phrase "semi-voluntary"?

Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his helpful suggestion, and I am prepared to accept his amendment.
We agreed to pay ourselves £5,750 in place of £4,500 immediately after the debate on the incomes policy.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): Was not the problem with that pay increase that we had waited so long that it had to be much larger than the public were prepared to accept? It was argued from both sides of the House in that debate that we should ease it along a little each year, as happened with most people. That is exactly what we are proposing today. The House has approved the principle that one day we shall get £8,000. If we do not ease it along a little at a time, we shall at some stage be faced with an increase of £2,000, and we shall have the same problems as we had in the past.

Mr. Lawson: The Parliamentary Secretary may succeed in catering your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when he can deploy his argument more fully. I accept that some hon. Members on both sides of the House on that occasion said that we should have only £6, and the Parliamentary Secretary will remember that I did not agree with it. But we all thought that the increase we had was in place of the £6, with the addition of a further sum for catching up, and that the total wrapped up the £6; but now we discover that that is not so and that some are to be given the £6 in addition. That is wholly wrong.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for addressing himself to my amendment, which I had not at that time moved. He said that we could not wait


until 1st October for the £4 increase and that there was an urgent need. Is he really saying that hon. Members are so desperate to get their hands on the money that they cannot even wait 10 weeks? That is absolutely nonsense, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
Even more curious, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the pay should go where it was most needed. He started off by arguing that the only reason for the £8,500 limit was that that was on stage 1 of the pay policy and, if we have the £6, we have to adopt the whole pay policy and nothing but the pay policy. That was his line. Now he is saying that it has nothing to do with it. He says that there has to be a means test among hon. Members and the pay must go first to Members who need it. It is a curious means test anyway, since it takes no account of investment income or wealth. The social security people and the Supplementary Benefits Commission would be very surprised at that kind of means test. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will retract that suggestion, because it is not a principle that the House can possibly adopt.
The Leader of the House also said that my amendment denied hon. Members the £6 to which they are entitled, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) pointed out, they are not entitled to it. The £6 is a ceiling; there is no entitlement and, therefore, no entitlement is being denied to hon. Members. The whole background to the way in which the Leader of the House presented his case was unfortunate. He said that the Government were applying the guidelines as an employer. It is clear that he had at the back of his mind that hon. Members were his employees. That we must reject out of hand.
The right hon. Gentleman's argument about differential pay was that Members of Parliament are paid for full-time service. They are not paid for full-time service. Members of Parliament are paid to serve their constituents and their country to the best of their ability. They are not paid for full-time service as defined by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and his friends who spend all their time in the Tea Room. That is not what they are paid for.
We should reject out of hand every contention put to the House by the Leader of the House. I do not claim that my amendment is perfect, but it will at least avoid some of the nonsenses, absurdities, difficulties and affronts to the House that are contained in the motion.

12.25 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: The Lord President rightly said that the conditions of work and the salaries of Members of Parliament made them unique. That must be true. Hon. Members who have been or still are active trade unionists know that it is the trade union branch meetings at which members discuss the latest wage claim that often attract the largest attendances. As today we are attending a branch meeting of Members of Parliament to consider their salaries, it is not surprising that we have a fairly good attendance for a Friday.
I know of no other organisation whose members collectively decide what salary they shall receive and the terms and conditions under which they work. I believe that that is wrong. We need to undertake fundamental reforms of the way in which we seek to represent our constituents. My personal view is that that cannot be done so long as we tolerate a practice whereby hon. Members are free to undertake and perform as many jobs for outside organisations as they care to seek and receive as much for those jobs as they can get.
It is intolerable in this modern age for hon. Members to decide for themselves without recourse to anybody how much they will do in the House on behalf of their constituents. Many of us object to Members of Parliament performing pecuniary tasks for outside bodies, and we also object to their non-attendance here. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), but I wish to see prevailing in Parliament a practice similar to that which prevails in local government, which is that any member who is absent for a period of time is automatically disbarred from membership of the local authority. If any hon. Member is absent for a period of time from the House, it could be argued that he should automatically be disbarred as a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: After that extraordinary


tirade, will the hon. Gentleman answer unequivocally this question: who is more likely to give dispassionate, honourable and independent service to his constituents, a Member who has a certain independence and outside interests, or a Member who is sponsored by a trade union which will crack the whip and tell him what to do and what to say? We know that that is true because it has happened in the past year.

Mr. Madden: I do not think that being a sponsored trade union member—as are many of my hon. Friends—makes a Member of Parliament any more or any less independent. I do not, however, believe that we can make the same claim for hon. Members who hold well-paid and numerous directorships in companies of all kinds. The three signatories of the amendment fall into that category.
According to the Register of Members' Interests the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) has two directorships outside the House for which, presumably, he receives fees. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), according to the register has five other jobs. The hon. Member, for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, again according to the register, has three directorships and two parliamentary consultancies.

Sir John Hall: If there were ever a decision of the House—

Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. There must not be too many interventions at once.

Mr. Madden: I give way to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman referred to me. I have had many complaints from his colleagues that I am here too much, especially late at night, and I wonder whether he regards me as full time or part time, as on the financial definition he seems to think that I am part time. Some of his hon. Friends think that I am full time. Will he say which he thinks I am?

Mr. Madden: Mr. Madden rose—

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must be allowed to continue his speech, or at least to answer the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

Mr. Madden: I regard the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury as an exceptional nuisance, but as a very exceptional parliamentarian and an assiduous attender.

Mr. Lawson: I wish to put the same question about myself, because the hon. Gentleman mentioned me specifically, too. He cannot get away by talking about nuisances. Does he consider me to be a full-time Member or a part-time Member? Many of my hon. Friends and Labour Members seem to think that I spend too much rather than too little time here.

Mr. Madden: Let me make my position clear. I believe that in the reforms of Parliament which I am suggesting we should ensure that Members receive, after independent review, what are generally considered to be realistic salaries. In doing that I believe that they should be automatically debarred from holding any outside financial interest for which they receive salaries in addition to their parliamentary salaries. I believe, too, that there should be clear provisions about attendance in the House and that hon. Members who do not fulfil those provisions should be automatically disbarred.
It is becoming a truism to say that there is never a good time to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament. I believe—this, again, is a personal view which I do not expect to be widely shared—that if there was ever a bad time, it is a bad time today to be confirming an increase in Members' salaries. Following as it does in the wake of yesterday's measures announced by the Chancellor, which will clearly impose great hardships on many far less privileged people than Members of Parliament, it is unreasonable to be granting an increase to Members today.

Mr. Dan Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does the Chair intend to permit this inter-discussion among various Members? Why


do not hon. Members listen to my hon. Friend?

Mr, Deputy Speaker: The Chair will deal with the matter as it thinks fit.

Mr. Madden: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones), who is my neighbour, for his consideration and protection and I hope in his interests to conclude my remarks shortly.
I was saying, although my good Friend from Burnley was obviously unable to hear me, that it is necessary for us seriously to consider what we are doing today in the light of yesterday's measures, which will clearly result in considerable unemployment. It is estimated that there will be 100,000 fewer jobs as a result of yesterday's measures. If many Members of Parliament gave up their other numerous jobs, they would make a small contribution to increasing employment.
The difficulties we always face in considering these matters derive from historical circumstances. If we had faced up to the issue of trying to resolve the problem of settling Members' salaries long ago, we should not have been continually placed in this highly embarrassing political situation every few years when we are asked to agree considerable increases which must take account of the fact that there have not been increases for several years preceding.
We must say that this is intolerable and that we shall reform the system. We must take this issue out of politics, but at the same time make highly political considerations in determining the pay of Members. I believe that we have a unique place and the Lord President was perfectly right when he said that this is a unique situation, because in the eyes of our constituents we are rather special people. We should take that into consideration in deciding our salaries.
The increase of 28 per cent. which we received in June of last year was a very large one. It was large because, again, it took account of the fact that we had not received an increase for a number of years. During that previous period I was not a Member of the House. At that time I considered the increase of £1,250 to be very large, particularly when compared with the pay increases received

by constituents of mine who, in the period since then, have certainly not all received a £6 increase. Many of them have received far less than £6.

Sir John Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to interrupt?

Mr. Madden: No, I must press on. Because of the size of the increase that we received in June of last year, it is unjustified for us to receive an increase of £6 a week this year. Such an increase is inappropriate and totally unjustified.
May I say a few words about the subject of secretaries, because, unfortunately, our parliamentary procedures mean that if we vote against the motion, we are also voting against an increase for secretaries? I deeply regret that, because I believe that an increase for secretaries is justified. Again, I suggest that there is an urgent need for reform regarding the employment of secretaries. It is an inheritance from the past which must be discarded and we must ensure that secretaries become employees of the House of Commons and receive proper salaries, standard conditions of employment, pension provision, and so on. I do not believe that that can be done given the unique and intolerable relationship that most secretaries have, as they are employed by Members of Parliament whose generosity varies greatly. All hon. Members know that to be so.
It must be regarded in that way because it is a personal relationship between a Member and his or her secretary. We all know that secretaries receive vastly differing sums for this work, and their conditions of employment vary still more. That is an intolerable relationship that we must seek to end at the earliest opportunity.
We are seeking to decide these matters in the wake of the Chancellor's measures of yesterday. I received a piece of paper in my mail telling me that the mileage allowances and the overnight expenses received by Members were to be increased as well. I know that this is an automatic response to provisions agreed by resolution of the House some time ago, but to the outside world—to our constituents—it is another little increase for Members of Parliament being slipped through quietly at a time when the circumstances of our constituents are very difficult. We should make these matters


public and justify them publicly, if they can be justified.

Sir John Hall: Sir John Hall rose—

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Lawson rose—

Mr. Madden: I will not give way. Both hon. Members will have their chance to say what they wish to say.
These are important matters. They cannot be swept under the carpet in the belief that they do not matter, that nobody cares, that nobody notices. We are always talking in the House about Parliament, politicians, political life and public life, being held in less regard than hitherto. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has rightly said on many occasions that historically the outside world has always had a very low regard for Parliament. Historically, I think that could be justified.
However, if we continue in this way and attempt to deal with our salaries and conditions in the secrecy of Parliament, in the strange and curious way that we do, the regard in which we are held will inevitably decline at a very fast rate. The time for change has come and we must stand up and let the people know that not all of us in this place are prepared to accept these proposals without voicing objection or without voting against them.

12.39 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: It is worth while to be sufficient of a full-time Member to be here to listen to a speech like that just delivered by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden). I wish that he came here more often and treated us to some more of these quite curious and baroque remarks. I do not think that there is a word other than "baroque" to describe his speech.

Mr. Ronald Bell: There are many others.

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that there are many others, but I have to stay within the rules of parliamentary order, which somewhat restricts me in describing such a speech.
The hon. Gentleman commented on full-time Members of the House. Where are all the full-time Members gone? I know where some of them are. I know where the National Union of Railway-

men sponsored full-time Members are: they are writing their essays. Their union has told them that they have to write essays? They have to pass an examination. They are not to go to their electorates. They have to write essays for the NUR executive. These are the full-timers, the men without any outside interests.
I have outside interests, and I can do without any of them. I can put them aside whenever I wish. If anybody asks me to do something that I think is not proper, or that I do not want to do, even if I am offered money for doing it. I can refuse it. Can a trade union-sponsored Member defy his union? His union controls his nomination to this place. He does not even get to first post on polling day, let alone have any freedom of action, if he upsets his sponsors.
That is why the NUR-sponsored Members are today writing their essays. They are having an examination in political reliability. The union wants to make sure that they are sufficiently pliable so that when it comes to discussing expenditure cuts, they will be reliable chaps and will want the cuts to bear on the heads of the members of other trade unions and not on their own members.

Mr. Robert Mellish: I am a sponsored member of a trade union and, therefore, I can speak with some knowledge of this subject. To get the record straight, let me tell the hon. Gentleman that for 30 years during which time I have been a sponsored Member I have never been told to do what I did not wish to do; secondly, if I had been told, I should have resented it; thirdly, it is clearly understood that the first duty of a Member of Parliament, whether sponsored or not, is to this House. There is no doubt about that. I wish the hon. Gentleman would not, even by innuendo, suggest that orders are given to sponsored Members. They are not given, and they would not be obeyed if they were.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman, of course, stands in this House almost unique. He would be a very unwise person who tried to twist the right hon. Gentleman's arm to force him to do anything. The right hon. Gentleman has too much experience of twisting the arms of other right hon. and hon. Members.
On the subject of innuendos, let us get the matter straight. Not long ago, an


issue of privilege was raised in this House and it was a hair's breadth as to whether the trade union leader concerned was brought to the Bar of the House. [Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) mouthing away. He can go back to the Tea Room and to his other usual haunts.
The innuendo is all too frequently thrown around by the hon. Member for Sowerby that those who have outside interests are a prey to them. We are considerably freer than those whose nominations to this place as Labour candidates are controlled by people who may not always have been members of the Labour Party and who, in the past, even if they are today members of the Labour Party, may have been on the Labour Party's proscribed list.
Let us get this matter of outside interests clear. If it is suggested that Members should relinquish their outside interests, does it mean that the Prime Minister should give up the farm which he has acquired since he has been a Member of Parliament? Does it mean that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) should have no more capital and assets than he could have acquired out of his income as a Member of Parliament while he has been in this House? It would be a very odd world if that were the case, and I do not think that would be a popular view on either side of the House.
I refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Sowerby about allowances. He is wrong, all ends up. The arrangements for the mileage allowance and the allowance for the extra cost of living in London are not long standing. They have been in operation for the last year, when hon. Members linked those allowances to similar allowances paid to civil servants. In case the hon. Member has not noticed, let me emphasise that they are not a perk for Members, any more than salaries for secretaries are a perk. They are available for the reimbursement of expenditure actually incurred. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that they are available for something else, let me disabuse him. They are not.
If he thinks that hon. Members should not be allowed to draw a reasonable allowance in order to reimburse them-

selves for costs actually incurred, I think that view is rather unfair to many hon. Members. It might not be too bad for those who represent constituencies in or near London, but if the hon. Gentleman believes that it should be made less expensive for me, with a constituency 12 miles away, to run my parliamentary affairs than for those who have to travel long distances to their constituencies, he is batting on an odd wicket, even for a Socialist.

Mr. Madden: I did not say that allowances that hon. Members can claim for mileage and overnight expenses were perks. Indeed, I have been in considerable correspondence with the Conservative agent in my constituency, who has been arguing that these allowances are perks, and I believe that I have persuaded him that they are not. What I was saying was that these allowances had been slipped through following the resolution passed in 1973 without a public statement. I was complaining that these allowances had been increased without a public statement. I did not say that they were perks.

Mr. Tebbit: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to make himself more clear the second time round. I shall leave the hon. Member now, because one cannot devote too much time going over the ground which he has managed to muddy in more ways than one.
I want to get back to the amendment, on which I wish to make two main points, first, about the principle of aggregation of incomes and, secondly, about the introduction of the two-tier pay structure for hon. Members. The amendment deals with both difficulties and it seeks to get rid of them.
We should ask who else suffers under the aggregation rule and, indeed, what the rule is. The Lord President described it briefly this morning. In essence, it states that no one earning more than £8,500 a year should receive an increase during the current uhase of the policy. The TUC's original proposal was that no one with an income of more than £7,000 a year should receive an increase. The Government made two changes when they transferred the proposal to the White Paper. They changed £7,000 to £8,500 and they


changed the word "income" to "earnings".
As has already been pointed out, those hon. Members who were fortunate enough to be born in the right bed and were perhaps left by their parents substantial sums of money on the income from which they live comfortably are not affected by the aggregation rule, because it is income. It pays the bills but it is not earnings. Only those who have earnings will be affected in this way. Pensions are not affected either, and I am very glad of that: I draw a pension. But is it reasonable that I should receive the benefit of work that I have done in the past but not the benefit of the work that I do now? It seems an odd distinction.
Let us think of the other people who stand to be affected by aggregation as enunciated by the Lord President. For instance, let us think of a surgeon in the National Health Service with a private practice and with a total income above £8,500 a year. Should he have taken the National Health Service salary increase this year, or should he have drawn a lower salary than the salary received by the surgeon standing beside him? If in the current year that surgeon performs more operations than he did last year, must he refuse the fees, or should he reduce his National Health Service salary by a commensurate amount? Is it right that two doctors in a hospital doing precisely the same work should receive different salaries because one chooses to spend the weekend playing golf and the other chooses to sepend it doing his work as a surgeon? Is that what the incomes policy and the aggregation rule being imposed on Members are about?
Let us come nearer home. If a trade union official or director of a company was last year appointed to a Government patronage post, perhaps to sit on the board of a nationalised industry, with a salary taking his total income over £8,500 a year, should he have renounced part of that salary? Can he take the money? Does the aggregation rule apply to someone who takes an additional job in the current year? Are we to interpret it in that way?
Let us suppose that, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr.

Lawson) had no outside interests at all last year, and during the current phase of the pay policy he was approached by a wise editor—perhaps of a good financial magazine or something of the sort—and asked to write an article of 1,000 words or so once a month, at a payment of £10,000 a year or something like that—[An HON. MEMBER: "More than that."] No, my hon. Friend is a modest fellow who would not want to overdo these things, and in any case he would not want to take any more because the tax man would take it away.
In such a case, where someone has acquired a new job in the relevant period, will the aggregation rule apply? If it applies in that hypothetical case, it must apply to the case of everyone who has been appointed to one of the Government patronage jobs, which are growing in number and in the richness of their perks day by day as we legislate for more and more of them. Seeing the Parliamentary Secretary rise so quickly to his feet, I thought that he was about to rush to the Dispatch Box with the answer, but I see that he is leaving to go where he hopes he may find it.

Mr. William Price: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am going on a far more desperate errand than that and I shall be back in about 25 seconds.

Mr. Tebbit: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will find the answer to this problem in the Government's policy where I gather he is going, but it would be even more appropriate if he took their policy and this motion with him and did not bring it back. I fancy that the Lord President will say that all these difficult questions are for Members themselves to resolve, perhaps in the privacy of some small room where they can do so without being disturbed—if that is not an inappropriate remark at this point.
However, there is a better way of getting round the difficulty. We can get round it by not paying ourselves the £6, by supporting the amendment that my hon. Friends and I have tabled. We could wait for the end of this phase of the policy, and we could thus avoid embarrassing the Government by asking all these questions which others outside the House may suddenly realise have an application to their own affairs. That would be a great good service. After


all, the Lord President has been in a bit of trouble during the past week and he does not want any more, just as the Government have been in trouble and do not want to get in any more.
Let me turn now to the question of two-tier pay for Members. The Lord President said that Members are paid for full-time service—

Mr. Mellish: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I think that he is putting it extremely well, but, in all fairness, he should recognise that this is not a matter to be treated frivolously. The incomes policy—if that is the right name for it—is full of anomalies. Everybody knows that. It is impossible, as the hon. Gentleman knows from the experience of his party when the Conservatives were in power, to produce any sort of policy in which there are no loopholes or anomalies.
There is substance in what the hon. Gentleman says, but he knows as well as I do that there is a general principle here that cannot be denied. Somehow there must be a limitation on increases in order to control inflation. Having accepted that principle, any of us can easily step in and say "There are a lot of anomalies". But let us be fair about it and not overstate the case.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman puts his point with all the charm to which we are accustomed. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) would stop making sedentary interjections which prevent others from hearing what is said.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is not quite right. It is not too difficult to have an incomes policy which does not have any loopholes. He will recall that that was a difficulty which my right hon. Friends found almost insuperable about two and a half years ago. We did not have enough holes in our policy to avoid some of the problems. If, on the other hand, one goes for the sort of incomes policy which this Government have adopted, one gets into difficulties—different difficulties, but difficulties none the less. It is not appropriate now to argue whether there should be an incomes policy at all, but some people may think that the difficulties make the

policy not worth the candle. However, that is another argument.
I return to what I was about to say about two-tier pay for Members. The Lord President spoke of Members being paid for full-time service. He did not say what it was. What is full-time service? As my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said, there was an atmosphere about the House, especially in and around the Treasury Bench, a week or so ago on Thursday night through to Friday morning implying that some of my hon. Friends were here when we should have been at home looking after some other business or, perhaps, out earning our pay somewhere else. But we were here defending our constituents' interests as we saw them, and great exception was taken to it.
Unfortunately for the Government, not having a very good Chief Whip nowadays, they did not have 100 Members on hand—they are short of full-timers on their side—to force the closure and send my hon. Friends and me back home, where we could not do any parliamentary work but where, perhaps, we might have been driven to writing articles or our memoirs for money—for money, believe it or not. Those are the difficulties, and if the Government had had their 100 Members here—those full-timers—they could have avoided putting us to the temptation of being driven away to earn money in some scandalous fashion.
What is "full time"? Does it mean that hon. Members should clock on and clock off? The Lord President quite often clocks off for a time. He can hardly tear himself away from Lockets and get into his chauffeur-driven limousine to come back in time for a Division. I hope that nobody asks him to clock in and out, because he would wear out his time card, being in and out so frequently.

Mr. Dan Jones: The hon. Gentleman wants to know who are full-timers. I suggest that the full-timers are those who regularly and unstintingly have served on Committees. both Standing Committees and Select Committees, during the years they have been in the House.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman has his view and he will no doubt develop it,


but if that is right I am probably one of the great full-timers, despite my outside interests, and so are a good many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
We all know what the Lord President really meant and wanted. He meant and wanted a pay rise for the Tea Room warriors—a pay rise exclusively for the Tea Room warriors. Those whom he regards as full-timers are those whom I regard as unemployable outside the precincts of this Palace—and some of them are darned near unemployable in the Palace, too, as the Prime Minister has found. He has had to sack some of them, and I have no doubt that he wishes that he could sack them entirely from this place.
The hon. Member for Keighley talked about the concept of paying the full-timer and the part-time worker different amounts. That is an interesting concept, but what about the concept of not paying overtime to those who do more than their share of work? What does he feel about the coal miner who goes home and makes a few bob out of breeding whippets? Does the hon. Gentleman feel that he should not take any money for breeding his whippets because he is a full-time coal miner? What about the chief executive of a borough council who has a seaside house that he rents out? Should he not take anything from that activity because he is a full-timer? I hope that the Prime Minister does not get any benefit from his farm and estates in Sussex. If he did so, that would be quite scandalous.
The hon. Member for Keighley and I, and a good many others, know about some of the ways in which colleagues manage to find an extra few bob. For instance, there are those Members who quite legitimately employ their wives as their secretaries. Provided that they have no other income, that privileged group will presumably be getting a rise in the family of £12 a week. There is nothing wrong with that. That is perfectly legitimate, but it turns our attention to the whole issue of family incomes.
No doubt before long the hon. Member for Keighley will want an incomes policy to control the income of the family. After all, if wives are earning money, it may be that some Members will be living better than others. Some chaps will be

eating from the à la carte menu while others will be on the table d'hote. There may even be a few chaps who can afford only a bun in the Tea Room. That is contrary to the whole idea of Socialism. Sooner or later the hon. Gentleman will want to restrict us even further. He will do so in the name of full-time and part-time Members.
I am not afraid of paying Members decent salaries. That is something towards which we are right to move. But it is not right for the House to decide which Members deserve their salaries. Surely it is for Members' constituents to do that. The House has no right to pass a judgment on whether a Member performs his job. If we ever get to that stage, we are moving on to extremely dangerous ground.
We came near to it recently in the case of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse). I am glad that we drew away from it then. However, we may be getting close to it again now in passing judgments and taking action on them in respect of each other. Let us get away from that. We may think the judgments of some constituents in sending certain Members to this place are idiosyncratic, to say the least, but we must accept that and leave it to them to make their judgments.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain more clearly by what mechanism constituents will set, increase or decrease Members' pay.

Mr. Tebbit: If I may say so, that was not the point. There is no way in which Members' pay can be set except by Members of Parliament. Whatever we set must be for all Members. It is up to our constituents to decide whether we are worth sending back here.

Mr. Dan Jones: Mr. Dan Jones rose—

Mr. Tebbit: No. I have been longer than I intended, and I should prefer the hon. Gentleman to make his own speech if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The amendment gets us round most of the problems. It would avoid making judgments on aggregation. It avoids treading towards a situation in which we pass judgments on so-called full-timers and


so-called part-timers. I support the amendment.
In case it interests any Labour Members or anyone else, I shall declare what I intend to do if the £6 motion is passed. I tell the House that my earnings are above £8,500 a year and that I shall not renounce the increase. I shall receive it because there is no law of the land that says I should not do so. I shall take it because I feel so strongly that we should not take the path towards two-tier membership. We should not punish those who do more than one job, or those who are more productive than others.
I accept that it would not be right to benefit personally from bucking a policy that the House has imposed on the rest of the country's citizens. After making a suitable deduction for tax, I shall give away the rest of the money, at least during the period of this policy, to a suitable charity. If anyone wants to know which charity, it will be the National Association for Freedom. That is a body that is doing a good deal to get rid of the sort of nonsenses proposed in this motion and by the Government generally.

1.7 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief, but after the contribution of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who seems to taint anything in a seedy fashion, I think that a few comments are required.
It is singularly in appropriate that the motion should be brought before the House the day after swingeing cuts have been announced in an anti-inflation package that will take about £2,000 million out of the economy and almost certainly cause more people to join the dole queue. It will appear to those outside that there are dual levels of attitudes and standards that allow a Labour Government to bring such a motion before the House the day after they have announced the cuts. I realise that this is essentially a House of Commons matter rather than a Government matter, but that fine distinction may not be immediately apparent to those who sent us here.
Another matter that concerns me is that with the £6 increase we shall be getting over £6,000 a year. To many people in this place that is not a great deal of

money. They are earning well above that and they have always had a rather better position in society than the vast majority of those outside. However, those who earn £6,000 a year in my constituency are the exception rather than the rule.
It is not very long ago that I led a delegation from three factories in my constituency that employ slightly more than 2,000 people among them. The labourers in one of the factories, after they had done a full standard 40-hour week, were taking home slightly over £30. They were seeking an increase of about £3. The purpose of the delegation was to argue whether the claim was within the pay policy. In every case the Department of Employment had to say that it was outside the pay policy. Therefore, people in my constituency earning between 40 and 50 quid a week could not obtain the modest increase of a couple of quid a week. That was because of the complication of the negotiations and the general pattern of the pay policy.
Although many people are earning £6,000 a year and upwards within the House and regard it as a normal fact of life, that it not the position for many people outside. Average industrial earnings, excluding non-manual workers, are currently £3,380 a year. Therefore, even at current salary levels we are getting £2,370 per annum more than average industrial earnings. Those average earnings are received by people who create the wealth. Wherever there is a product, people are receiving just over that average. The figure includes bonuses and overtime. That is a factor that we must bear in mind.
Those of us on the Labour Benches take the view that society should not consist of a pyramid with a few at the top earning large sums and living a style of life that markedly differentiates them from the rest of society. Of course there will be differentials. If we argue within the trade union movement that they should not exist, we find that the AUEW is strongly of the view that there should be differentials between craftsmen and others, for example.
The aim of the Labour movement has been to get elected Members who can represent the attitudes and values of the working class. That is difficult to put into effect, because when we come into


office we have a machine by and large staffed by people who are used to high earnings and who have an educational background different from that of most of the members of our movement. We inherit a system whereby we are made to feel over-important. We have to make important decisions and there is pressure to push the Government away from the grass roots, from the rank-and-file members who sent us here.
With a so-called top salary, a person may find that his style and values are weaned away from the movement. It does not happen in many cases but the process can happen in reverse, with the rank and file starting to say of such people "They do not quite belong to us."

Mr. Nigel Forman: What does the hon. Gentleman think would happen were the impossible to happen and this society become indistinguishable from some societies which claim to be truly Socialist? The differences in life style in those societies which the hon. Gentleman would hold up as models are determined by other factors—bureaucratic and power factors, positions in the hierarchy and so on. Differences in life style between a top Soviet official and the average Soviet peasant are as marked, if not more so, as the differences between the top director of ICI—who, after tax, does not have such a staggering income as many Labour Members would think—and the average industrial worker.

Mr. Cryer: I do not hold out the Soviet Union as a model for everything, although that is the sort of remark that is constantly made by Conservative Members. I do not suggest that Soviet society is a pattern that we should follow. There are many undesirable aspects of Soviet society that I oppose root and branch and I should strongly object to their introduction here.
I am concerned that we should not widen and over-emphasise differentials. I realise that the Opposition believe in a markedly hierarchical society with a strongly elitist attitude and structure. I do not like that. Elitism is the curse of our nation. It tends to divide the nation and reject the ability and talent in the people. That is why we on this side of the House want to develop industrial democracy and participation to a much

greater degree. Our attitudes towards salaries is part of the same philosophical attitude.
The subject of outside interests has been mentioned. Some hon. Members can have a number of outside interests and be extremely active within the House. I think of one hon. Member who probably has 20 or 30 directorships—I have not counted them recently—but who is an active, hard-working member of the Opposition. But I object to Conservative Members lecturing workers as they are frequently prone to do, about greater productivity and so on, when those workers cannot have several jobs at once and receive a high level of remuneration for all of them. Many of them have contractual obligations not to undertake outside employment which would interfere with their work.
There is a way in which outside interests can interfere with a Member. I am not saying that there are specific instances, but if the hon. Member receives money from an outside interest and happens to vote in conjunction with those interests, even though his motives may be pure as the driven snow people outside may well argue that his vote was motivated not by the interests of the people as a whole but by his financial reward.
It would be better and more straight forward if outside interests were removed on a person's entering the House. It would be better if he had to give them up, as a Minister must, for the duration of his office. Then there would be no argument and no obscurity about his motives.

Mr. Forman: In putting forward this imaginative idea, is the hon. Gentleman saying that Labour Members would give up their trade union sponsorship whilst they were in the House?

Mr. Cryer: I am coming to trade union sponsorship. The financial rewards of which I am talking are personal rewards. The trade unions do not pay individual hon. Members but pay a sum of money towards the constituency Labour Party expenses, and those payments are all set out in the declaration of Members' interests. The notion that the trade unions command hon. Members is totally wrong. Sometimes they become


very worried about their total lack of influence on hon. Members.
There have been two occasions recently when trade unions have suggested that hon. Members should follow a particular policy which had been adopted by the trade union and put forward at the election. One was when the Yorkshire branch of the National Union of Mineworkers suggested that Yorkshire NUM-sponsored Members should follow a particular course, and that was held to be a breach of privilege. The other was when the general secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen said that if the Government did not pursue a particular line on transport, that union would instruct its Members not to vote for the Government. The next day he apologised. It had been said in the heat of the moment at an excited meeting with about 4,000 people present. It is possible for the odd word to be said maladvertently on such an occasion.
The notion that trade unions have constituencies in their pockets is also totally wrong. There have been many occasions when trade union sponsored candidates have not been chosen, when trade union delegates have ignored the trade union sponsored candidate, the panel candidate, and chosen somebody else. That has happened time and again. There was a sponsored candidate on the list when I was chosen, but the constituency party decided that I was the person it wanted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am pleased that hon. Members approve.
In essence, the two-tier structure is good, because if we are having an incomes policy and are supposed to be setting an example to the nation at a time of grave economic difficulty, hon. Members earning more than £8,500 a year should be happy to make a sacrifice. That is how I would differentiate between outside interests and receiving money from the taxpayer.
By and large, the taxpayer regards £5,750 a year as an adequate salary. Indeed, it is for most people. However, in contrast to the jibes made earlier about my presence in the Tea Room, many Conservatives in the North feel that I ask too many Questions and they occasionally write to the local newspapers to that effect. Since I speak today with that

attitude very much in mind, I shall now resume my seat.

1.20 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I gather from the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that he is opposed to the motion, at any rate so far as it relates to the remuneration of Members of Parliament. In that case I find myself in agreement with him, not entirely for all the same reasons, although for reasons which overlap those which he advanced.
There are two propositions before the House. One takes the form of a motion on the Order Paper moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and the other is associated with the right hon. Gentleman and appears in the Official Report on 12th July 1976, at column 32. Of those two propositions I find the second much more objectionable than the first. However, to dispose of the motion on the Order Paper, I would be opposed to that even if unaccompanied by the much more objectionable features set out in Hansard on 12th July.
A year ago I indicated that I did not believe that the increase in Members' remuneration which was then decided was justified. I drew attention to the fact that the real value before that increase of the salary of Members was still higher than it had been—to take a year more or less at random, the year in which I happened to come into the House—in 1950. There has been a substantial erosion, although with decreasing rapidity, in the value of money in the last year. Nevertheless, when we take into account the fact that, as compared with earlier years, many expenditures of hon. Members which would previously only have been allowable against tax are now fully reimbursed separately from the remuneration, it is still true to say that the remuneration of hon. Members is today not less than it broadly has been over the last generation. Therefore, I do not consider it justified in present circumstances, and I doubt whether I would in different circumstances, that the remuneration should be increased.

Mr. William Price: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the salaries paid to hon. Members when he came into the House in 1950 were adequate?

Mr. Powell: The salary certainly was adequate in 1950 to attract leading individuals, some of whom are no longer here to speak for themselves. That intake into the House was regarded by those who had been here before as one of the most distinguished. I do not restrict that to one side of the Chamber. It was not considered that the salary of a Member of Parliament, bearing in mind the honour and distinction of that calling, was any deterrent to a person putting himself forward as a candidate for membership of the House.
I shall continue to follow the principle which I have always followed, and which for the first time I disclosed in the debate a year ago. That principle is that I would not accept any increase in remuneration which was made during the course of a Parliament but would continue to draw only the remuneration offered at the time when I offered myself for election.
But, much more seriously, the course of the debate has shown up the ghost motion, as it were, which is not before the House but which lurks in the columns of Hansard to which I referred. That is an extremely remarkable and unprecedented development in regard to arrangements for the remuneration of Members. It is remarkable and indeed objectionable in more respects than one.
Let me take the words of the Leader of the House as reported in column 33 of the Official Report of 12th July. He said that hon. Members who have earnings from other sources which take their total earnings to £8,500 or more would be asked to forgo the increase in full. I do not believe that it is decent or becoming that Members should be self-assessed for the purposes of their remuneration or that, however honourable may be their intentions or behaviour, they should stand before the public and say that what hon. Members receive depends on their personal decision in complying with what the right hon. Gentleman called "general guidance". That is not the manner in which those whom we represent are remunerated and it is not the principle underlying the manner in which they are taxed.
There are some circumstances in which self-assessment is the basis of taxation in other countries. But one of the objections made by Labour Members to the earlier

form of a certain type of capital taxation was that it amounted to a voluntary tax—namely, to self-assessment. I agree with them in objecting to the principle of a voluntary tax. What we have here, strictly for Members of Parliament only, is a voluntary assessment of one's income.
As I have quoted the words of the Lord President of the Council, perhaps I should express my pleasure that, as promised, he has now returned to the Chamber. That enables me to say that one of the most attractive characteristics of the right hon. Gentleman is that the House always knows exactly how much he likes or dislikes the proposition he is laying before the House. When the right hon. Gentleman, who is usually to be seen without a scrap of paper on the Dispatch Box, keeping the House in a state of delighted attention and entertainment for 15, 30 or 45 minutes, is reduced to reading, not always very well, pages of semi-gobbledegook, the House knows that something is amiss. So honourable, so straightforward and—I say this in the best possible sense—so transparent is the right hon. Gentleman that one can instantly tell by the tone in which he answers interventions whether his heart is or is not in the matter.
The heart of the right hon. Gentleman is certainly not in this ghostly appendix to the motion on the Order Paper. As a parliamentarian he cannot approve the aspect which I have already mentioned—namely, that we are to be singled out to be the recipients of a request to forgo a part of the remuneration being made available to us in a formal resolution of the House. It it is considered proper that remuneration should be limited in certain circumstances, let it be put into the motion on the Order Paper. Let the House order its Members how they should behave. That is the only decent and honourable way in which to go about it. Let us see that due certification and authentication, according to the conditions the House has attached to the motion, are fulfilled.
My first ground of objection, then, to the ghost motion in column 33 of the Official Report of 12th July is its voluntary and private nature. We are asked in our private discretion to forgo the whole or part of this increase.
Then there is the principle underlying the whole proposition that Members'


total earnings from parliamentary salary and other sources should limit the addition which is made to the parliamentary salary. The right hon. Gentleman claims that this is in implementation of the incomes policy instituted a year ago. But the curious, who have examined the White Paper, Command Paper 6151, which, like the Prayer Book of 1662, was annexed to a statute, will notice that the wording is not the same. In the extract from the TUC document which we have as an annex to a schedule to an Act of Parliament, paragraph 10 refers to an upper limit to the increases and says:
the more prosperous can more easily bear the burden of helping the economy and should be prepared to take a cut in their current standards of consumption; those with incomes over £7,000 a year should forgo
—the right hon. Gentleman's word—
any increase in their incomes in the present period of difficulties".
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to comply with the terms annexed to the statute dealing with the incomes policy of last year, it is not the earnings of right hon. and hon. Members which should form the limit; it is their income.
If I am told that "That is only the TUC annex", I turn to the body of the White Paper where for "£7,000" was substituted "£8,500". I find nothing at all about substituting "earnings" for "incomes". The fact is that, however a Government Department has interpreted it—and I do not believe that it has any business to interpret it as I am told it has been doing—the White Paper and the policy laid before the House and the country last year refers to incomes. Why has the right hon. Gentleman departed from this? Why have the Government not asked Members whose incomes from all sources exceed £8,500 to forgo receiving the whole or part of the increase?
The right hon. Gentleman disclosed the reason for that when he said—and I am sorry that he put it upon the record of the House—"He"—that is, the Member of Parliament—"is paid for full-time service". Those were the right hon. Gentleman's words and I noted them at the time. I will not enter the interminable labyrinth of the attempt to denote what is meant by full-time service in application to any Member of Parlia-

ment. These were amusingly explored earlier, only some of them, by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), to the entertainment of the House. What is really meant by those who talk about full-time service is exclusive service. They do not mean that it is their idea that hon. Members should sit here like dummies for eight hours a day, clocking in and out—that is not what they really mean; they really mean that those who are Members of Parliament should be Members of Parliament and nothing else, however they choose to discharge their functions as Members of Parliament—that is, irrespective of whether they choose to sit up all night or whether, like the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire), they do what they have a perfect right to do, and what, for all I know, his constituents, or some of them, expect him to do, and that is to absent himself from a great part of the proceedings of this House. To be absent from the proceedings of this House has been and can be one of the ways in which hon. Members represent their constituents.
The proposition, when it is correctly stated, of the right hon. Gentleman is that he regards the salary not as being—that was an anticipation of a hope—paid for exclusive service to this House, but that it ought to be so paid. That is why "earnings" is substituted in the ghost motion for "income" which is the word in the White Paper. "Income" it should be if it were means-tested. If this were egalitarianism it would be "income" which would be inserted. But, irony of ironies! Labour Members are harking back to the splendid days of the nineteenth century, when so many of the scions of the nobility, destined after a few years in this House—in my opinion to the advantage of both places, but let that pass—to be summoned to the places of their fathers and forefathers, gave their services meantime as Earls of Lincoln, Marquesses of Tavistock and viscounts of something else.
That was perfectly all right for the Labour Party, provided their income was drawn from investments, from gold mines in South Africa or from the broad acres on which the Palladian mansions stood. It would be quite right for such people to draw the full increase in the parliamentary salary, but let an hon. Member—

Mr. Cormack: Directorships.

Mr. Powell: I will not enter into directorships. I will consider more blameless functions such as scribbling an occasional article for the newspapers, or even taking a fee for appearing on the screen. Let an hon. Member engage in such activities and the hackles of the Labour Party rise. "No", they say, "that is not our view of a House of Commons. A House of Commons should be pure, not in the sense that its Members do not have enormous interests but in the sense that they must not earn money in any other way than as Members of this House."
This carries us towards an intolerable deformation of the House of Commons. I believe, with the hon. Member for Chingford, that just as it is within the discretion, subject to our ultimate masters out-of-doors, and should remain within the discretion of an hon. Member, how much time he devotes and how he devotes it, if he devotes it at all, to the service of this House, so the manner in which he conducts his life otherwise, the manner in which he seeks to increase his income by earnings, is no concern of this House and no concern of the decisions which it takes on remuneration. Therefore I the more heartily join in objecting to this motion because at the same time one is understood to be objecting to and indeed rejecting the attached conditions contained in column 33 of Hansard of 12th July.

1.38 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: But for the speeches that we have heard from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), I have found this a disagreeable, distasteful and miserable occasion. I do not like talking about our pay. Least of all do I like doing so on occasions such as this. It is never the right time for Members of Parliament to discuss their pay or to receive an increase in pay. Nevertheless, the crass incompetence displayed by the Lord President and his right hon. and hon. Friends in enabling this motion to come before us today of all days has seldom been exceeded.
What will people outside the House think? If the Government had brought ignominy upon themselves, I would not

object. What I do object to is that they are bringing ignominy on us all by allowing this motion to come forward on the day after they have cut into the earnings and the standard of living of every other person. The Government have cut the standard of living of the governed and on the morn they ask us to approve a motion to pay ourselves more.
The reason, of course, is the crass bungling of last year. The House expressed its desire in principle to link our salaries with another body outside so that the matter would be taken out of our hands. That is what most of us wanted, and we showed as much. We did not wish to have this ignominious occasion, year after year. Despite the fact that we were tying our salary to that of an Assistant Secretary grade in receipt of a much higher salary than £8,500, we were right in our decision to avoid these miserable occasions.
Like the right hon. Member for Down, South, I do not believe that the increase of £6 is justified this year, and so I shall vote against it. It is not justified by the amount of extra work we have done, nor by the increase in the cost of living. We even told the pensioners that they could not have their full increase because the inflation rate was falling—and if the inflation rate is falling, I do not believe we deserve to pay ourselves an increase.
Least of all is it justified to go over to this ghost system, as the right hon. Member for Down, South so aptly described it, whereby some may get a rise or not depending on earnings outside the House. He pointed out that people can discount incomes from stately mansions, or whatever it may be. What about those of us on pension? Apparently, we can discount that and draw the increase if we want to. That is totally unacceptable.
But, having compounded the nonsense of last year, the Government have gone even further with the notional increase in salary for the purpose of drawing a higher pension, and that, too, is unacceptable. We do not allow it to anyone else. We would not dream of allowing any other body outside, public or private, to do it. We did not allow the Civil Service to do it when there was a pay freeze in 1972. We said that it could not have pensions in line with what the incremental increases would have been if they had been allowed.
There is no case for the proposal to credit us with £.112·50 by way of supplement in order that we should be able get a higher pension than we are earning. That is not just nonsense, but bloody nonsense. It is immoral and wrong. If we will not allow it to anyone else, why should we allow it to ourselves? It is simply trying to treat ourselves on a higher plane than anyone else.
Indeed, I believe that there is tax evasion in this proposal. I am not an expert, but surely the fact that we are being paid a salary deemed to be higher than it really is for purpose of pension is an advantage at which the Inland Revenue should be looking. I think that there is a taxable element.

Mr. Rathbone: We shall be discussing that point when we come to the Parliamentary and Other Pensions and Salaries Bill later today.

Mr. Boscawen: I am glad to hear it. I hope that the House will oppose the motion. I hope that it will oppose that Bill. I hope that the House will treat these proposals with the contempt and disgust that I feel.

1.46 p.m.

Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Hands-worth): With some at least of the strictures of the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) I am in a measure of agreement. There is always an element of embarrasment when we are discussing our salaries. That is why, I suspect, hon. Members are paid very much worse than members of other Parliaments of other democracies of a comparable stage of development. Because of it, over the years—and it is no good trying to burke the issue—a number of hon. Members have lived in straitened circumstances and have often found themselves in a fearful predicament if, as a result of a change in political fortunes, they have lost their seats. For that reason, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's sentiments and share them to some extent, I could not bring myself to vote against any increase.
There is another reason for my attitude. I practise at the Bar. I have never sought to play down that to my constituents, and my constituents in both seats I have represented have always

accepted it. I can, if it is necessary to do so, as I believe it is, justify why I think it right for hon. Members if they can to maintain outside activities, always providing that those activities do not act to the detriment of their parliamentary duties.
But it does not behove an hon. Member who enjoys an income from an external source to deny those who do not the modest increase proposed here. What the hon. Gentleman said so scornfully about the pension situation is an apt product of the tortuous situation in which we have landed ourselves simply because we have failed time and again to equate to the Civil Service notional grading in order that the matter might be dealt with automatically instead of our finding ourselves in the ambarrassing situation of an introspective examination.
But I must say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that this is just about the worst possible time for us to consider this matter, although I can think of no instance when Members' salaries have been under review when it has not been possible to argue cogently that that, too, was embarrassing. But to choose the day after the Chancellor's statement on public expenditure is not the way, as Dale Carnegie would put it, to win friends and influence people. It will be recieved with a certain amount of cynicism outside.
I do not often find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and Sowerby (Mr. Madden). We usually think very much alike and are in the same pressure group. I believe that, with the best motives in the world, they have misunderstood the situation. I share their views. We reject the idea that there should be marked discrepancies of income, and the differences, in life-styles which are permitted as a result. We are gradually moving away from this idea, however. One of the quiet revolutions over which this Government have presided is the telescoping of standards of living of all our people. If it continues, it will no longer be possible to talk in terms of a class-ridden society.
Having said all this, I think that my hon. Friends fail to take account of the fact that, whatever situation may apply to other occupations, ours is one occupation which can never be secure and should


never be secure. We are always in danger of being sacked, and we should always be in danger of being sacked, whether it is by our constituents in the normal way or by our constituency parties or associations, which I know is not quite so acceptable to some hon. Members. The hazards of unemployment are always with us and we must take account of that fact.
It is right that Members should have outside interests provided they conduct them in a way which is not detrimental to their duties. In this way an hon. Member can cross-fertilise his experience with what is going on outside the House. We all come into the House bringing with us a measure of experience of outside occupations, but that experience dates with the passage of time. If one spends all one's time in this House, unless one picks someone else's brains one is relying on outdated personal experience.
I came here with experience of three occupations. I was a former colonial service officer, a former official of the BBC, and at the moment I am a practising lawyer. Unless I continue to maintain my outside occupation, I am in danger of becoming progressively more claustrophobic in my approach to my parliamentary duties.
There is another point which I do not suppose is so acceptable to the Government. If one has an independent source of income, one is in a far better position to tell the Whips to go to hell. I have the distinction of being the last Member of the Labour Party from whom it was seriously considered withdrawing the Whip. This occurred in 1969 after having, in the words of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), my dog licence endorsed on numerous occasions. I repeated this "crime" on another occasion—I think it was over Selective Employment Tax. It was not a normal Left-Right issue. I do not regret doing so because I happened to believe that SET was a damned silly tax. The Parliamentary Liaison Committee wrote to me giving me a warning, and I wrote back an extremely rude letter which sparked off the situation in which the committee seriously considered withdrawing the Whip from me altogether. It did not happen, and tolerance prevailed.
If one is a full-time Member and one loses the Whip or is expelled, as happened not infrequently in less tolerant days, one faces the prospect of unemloyment and very considerable difficulties. There are about 400 safe seats in this House and hon. Members who hold them are not in any danger of unemployment as long as they toe the line. If a Member is expelled from his party, he is in danger of unemployment irrespective of the safety of his seat. Very few hon. Members survive this House without major party backing. If they do, they usually survive only one election. I can think of only Dick Taverne and D. N. Pritt in recent years and in both cases they survived only one term.
It should be the duty of every Member of this House to defy his Whips if he feels that is necessary. If a Member has a secondary occupation, he has a greater moral obligation to defy his Whips. I am gradually digesting the contents of yesterday's White Paper and I am beginning to wonder whether I shall retain the Whip of my party for the rest of this Parliament. I am leaving the House of my own choice at the end of this Parliament. I do so with regret because I love this place and enjoy the privilege of being here, but I still have duties to perform in the meantime. It is easy for me to say this and I realise that if a Member is not retiring, he might have some reservations about defying his Whips.
I have doubts about some aspects of yesterday's White Paper, which envisages an increase in levels of unemployment which we on this side of the House already regard as intolerable. I think I have a duty to put my membership of this House at risk in the way I have suggested. It is easy for me because I have another occupation.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) annihilated the argument about two-tier membership. How on earth can anyone evaluate a Member of Parliament's duties? One might as well ask a firm of management and method consultants to do a time and motion study on hon. Members, breathe down their necks while they sit at their desks, and then go into the Chamber and evaluate the Questions they ask. But what


about the answers? I have put down a lot of Questions lately about Lonrho, and I keep getting non-answers. Would any evaluation of my worth take account of the ministerial replies I receive?
I know why two-tier membership has come about and I have some sympathy with the Minister. My right hon. Friend is trying to demonstrate to the public that we are trying to be fair. He is trying to show the public that the House has recognised the difficulties of Members whose incomes have been eroded, but is doing so as modestly as possible so as to cause the least possible offence. But it will not do. We cannot talk in those terms.
It is not just a question of self-assessment. Most Members would behave honourably and honestly in that if required to do so. Nobody can evaluate a Member of Parliament except his constituents. They alone should decide.

2.2 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am totally and implacably opposed to the two-tier system to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) referred. It is manifest and dangerous nonsense for Members of Parliament to be evaluated in that way. It is the thin end of the wedge. If the motion gets through we shall have taken a long step towards having two types of Members of Parliament. The empty Labour Benches are an eloquent testimony to the fact that certain full-time Members are not what some would consider to be full time.
I have outside interests which help to keep me in touch with the real world and with what is going on, as well as being financially helpful from time to time. The hon. Member for Handsworth has outside interests, but no one could be a more assiduous attender in this Chamber than he is. I am sorry that he is leaving the House because he makes a very real, albeit idiosyncratic contribution to our debates. How he manages to combine a busy legal practice with his attendance here I do not know, but his constituents are not left unrepresented in the Chamber. The hon. Member is here day after day putting Questions and making speeches, sometimes provocative and sometimes to the annoyance of his hon. Friends. So it is with many of us.
I try to make sure that I am in the Chamber daily at least at Question Time and for most debates, and certainly for the major debates. I do not boast about that because it is my duty, but equally it should not prevent me from having outside interests or from increasing the remuneration I receive. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—in his magnificent and witty speech—that it is inappropriate at the moment for us to have any increase but that if we are to have one it should be for all of us and that the tax man should be left to decide how much we receive.
I admired the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) when he said that he intended, notwithstanding the result of today's deliberations, to take his £300, to deduct the appropriate sum of tax, and to give the rest to charity. I am tempted to follow his advice, but I have a crisis of conscience there because I do not wish to fly in the face of any resolution that the House might pass—

Mr. Powell: It is not in the resolution.

Mr. Cormack: No, the right hon. Gentleman is right, but it is implicit in it. I admire the courage of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford, and I believe it is a course which many hon. Members might decide to adopt.
I remember as a prospective candidate trying to secure a seat going to a constituency selection committee. I will not give any clues as to the identity of the constituency of the Member concerned. Because I was an eager young candidate I boned up on the record of the retiring Member. He had sat in this House for more than 20 years, during which time he had asked 17 Questions. He had made four speeches, the last of which was in Committee when he requested that the windows should be closed. Nevertheless, he was a full-time Member within the normal meaning of the term. I believe that his constituents were very badly served, but they decided to send him back here, Parliament after Parliament, as they were fully entitled to do.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire) has an engaging personality when one manages to speak to him. But he has hardly


appeared in this place since he was elected in October 1974. I do not complain about that. It is for his constituents to complain if they wish. Often absence in itself can be a form of service, and perhaps the hon. Member considers that he is serving his constituents best by not being here. They must decide, but to say that he is a full-time Member or that because his earnings do not exceed £8,500 he can have the £300 a year while I, the hon. Member for Hands-worth and my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford cannot is palpable nonsense. That should be resisted by hon. Members who pride themselves on having intelligence and integrity. The increase must be for everyone or for no one.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) is not here. I do not like referring in a critical spirit to someone who is absent. He made a damaging and dangerous speech which was quite the most ridiculous I have heard for some time. It was riddled with contradictions. He argued that our salaries should in some way be linked so that they were taken out of the realm of political controversy. I agree with that. He then went on, however, to argue about the increase in allowances announced yesterday and he criticised them for being hole and corner and for having been done quietly. But they were done that way because they have been so linked. His whole speech was a tissue of contradictions and nonsenses, and I am glad to see the Minister nodding. The Minister is a wise man. Before occupying his present distinguished position he had his own outside interests in journalism, and I am therefore sure that lie will agree with what I am saying.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Even Homer nods.

Mr. Cormack: Yes, even Homer nods, but I do not see him present.
The hon. Member for Sowerby talked about the need for what amounts to exclusivity, and that worries me. It is the desire of many Labour Members, although not a majority I am glad to say, to ensure that Members of Parliament have no other duty but their duty here. They would prevent them from writing the odd article—although what happens in the case of memoirs I do not know—and presumably they would not

be allowed to appear on television or the radio. They would be allowed to do nothing but sit in this House. That is a dangerous course to advocate. For Members to have no connection with legal, commercial or any other sort of interests would impoverish and diminish this place in its stature, importance and relevance to the affairs of the nation. Those of us who truly value democracy should oppose that suggestion. The hon. Member for Sowerby is unfortunately not here to defend himself. Being a full-time Member, he chooses to do something else at present.
Many people who come to witness our deliberations and proceedings are aghast when they see that the Benches on both sides are hardly occupied even on major debates. Even on some of our most important debates there is a period of three or four hours in which there are only 20 Back Benchers in the Chamber.
This is very regrettable, especially when one considers that there are so many hon. Members who have no other interests. I bet that of the 20 hon. Members in the Chamber at those times, 15 or 16 would have other interests, but would be here doing their parliamentary duties. In most cases, there is no conceivable connection between assiduity of attendance, conscientiousness of service and absence of outside interests.
I appreciate the motives behind the motion, but I feel very strongly that we should oppose it. If it is accepted, we shall be doing a disservice to Parliament, democracy and our constituents. I hope that all hon. Members at present in the Chamber will support the admirable amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson).

2.12 p.m.

Mr. Roger Sims: I view the motion with less than enthusiasm. The amendment at least seeks to make the best of a rather bad job.
Twelve months ago, under Government guidance, we fixed our salaries at their present level in defiance of a recommendation of the Boyle Committee. I do not share the view of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) that we should have no increase. The Boyle Committee recommended that the salary of hon. Members


should be £8,000 a year and, perhaps unusually, added the comment:
We consider it to be of the highest importance that our recommendations both on Member's salaries and on their allowances, and on the Parliamentary salary of Ministers and office holders, should be implemented in full and wthout delay.
I do not want to rehearse all the arguments of that time, but if that statement applied then, it applies even more strongly now. The whole business was very badly handled last year and the eventual decision was must unsatisfactory. This motion compounds the eror.
I particularly object to the Lord President's request—it cannot be an instruction—that some hon. Members should not draw the additional £312. I object not only to the fact that this creates two categories of hon. Members but also to the thinking behind it which was enunciated in the speeches of the hon. Members for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) and Keighley (Mr. Cryer). They reflected the view that it is somehow improper for an hon. Member to have another job.
If an hon. Member wishes to add to the extraordinary hours that we work in this place—which would be defined as full time by any standards—by pursuing another occupation, his remuneration for so doing is a matter between him and his employer. It has nothing to do with the Lord President. The House benefits from having hon. Members who take an active part in the real world outside. It benefits from the presence of people such as my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall), Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and Blaby (Mr. Lawson).

Mr. George Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that it is legitimate to argue that the motion or the speech of the Leader of the House implies that there is something wrong with an hon. Member having outside interests and additional income? If that were true, it would follow that there was something wrong with an hon. Member accepting ministerial office above the minimum level because the total of his Member's and ministerial pay would exceed £8,500 and, under the present pay policy, he would not receive an increase. Yet no one in his right mind suggests that there is something

improper about an hon. Member accepting ministerial office.

Mr. Sims: I realise that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) may not be a full-time Member and may have been otherwise occupied, but if he had been here earlier he would have heard the speeches of his hon. Friends who were implying precisely what I have suggested. The Lord President also spoke of the salary being for a full-time job. The effect of the motion is to add weight to the view that there are two categories of hon. Members.
I believe that I can serve better as an hon. Member because, two or three times a week. I go to my office in the City and keep in touch with developments in the export trade which is so important to this country. In case hon. Members opposite should think that I receive a five-figure salary for this job, I can assure them that, under the Lord President's formula, I shall qualify for the £6.
My objection is therefore not on the grounds of personal financial interest or solely on the other grounds that I have outlined, but because I believe that the Lord President's approach is misguided and that we could be on a slippery slope if we let him get away with the principle that he has enunciated.
I hold no brief for the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) but I was very worried when we were contemplating his expulsion. We could have found ourselves, by implication if not actually, laying down terms of reference for hon. Members with sanctions if they failed to adhere to them, and that is almost precisely what some hon. Members opposite were seeking when they were talking about attendances here.
We are getting on extremely dangerous ground if we start to imply that an hon. Member who spends a lot of time with his constituents, looking after their interests, is not as effective as an hon. Member who drops in here and spends most of his time in the Tea Room or other parts of the House. I am glad that we did not follow the course that was being suggested in the case of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North.
We should realise that we are now approaching similar dangerous ground again. What the Government are, in


effect, saying is that if an hon. Member has another occupation he is to be penalised as against other hon. Members. They are saying that this year there will be a penalty on such hon. Members of £312. What will it be next year? £500? And the following year? £1,000?
I believe that the motion is bad in that it perpetuates a profoundly unsatisfactory state of affairs and I hope that the Lord President will resolve this state of affairs as speedily as possible. I also believe that the right hon. Gentleman's edict of conditions, with which he has accompanied the motion, is one which is grossly misguided, and I hope that he will withdraw it.
I hope that the Minister, when replying, will lift the curtain a little more about what is in the second part of the Boyle Report which, I understand, is available to him but has not yet been published. The implication is that it carries further recommendations with regard to MPs' pay and allowances. I hope that there is something in that report in respect of MPs' travel facilities. It seems to me quite extraordinary that travel facilities for Members of Parliament are restricted to the conventional triangle of home, constituency and Westminster. The idea of Members' pay and allowances is that it should enable hon. Members to do their job properly, and yet we are precluded from doing so by not being able to travel anywhere outside that triangle unless we do so at our own expense.
I will give a small example. One of my interests is in the magistracy, having been a magistrate. This weekend I hope to attend the Magistrates' Association conference, but I shall have to do so at my own expense. If, as a Member of Parliament, I am interested in visiting a prison, unless I go on a parliamentary visit to a prison I have to organise it and to go at my own expense. I would have thought it not unreasonable for some sort of general season ticket on the railways, or something of that sort, to be introduced which would enable Members of Parliament to do their job more properly.
I hope that the Minister can give some indication of what is in the second part of the Boyle Report. I hope that that will be one of the recommendations. If it is not, I hope that such a proposal will

come before the House without undue delay.

2.13 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I am grateful for this opportunity to squeeze briefly into this debate. I do so because I was provoked by an article that was drawn to my attention and that appeared in the Daily Mail on 16th July when Mr. Andrew Alexander wrote among other things:
The main rÔle of MPs, outside that of dealing with constituents' problems—and there is scant evidence that they listen with real care to constituents in any case—is to scrutinise legisation, to watch the use of taxpayers' money and to keep a stern and watchful eye on Ministers and their policies. MPs fail abysmally at all three.
I felt that was just a bit more than I, as a fairly senior new Member, could take. I wanted to say a few words about this subject in the light of that article.

Mr. Cryer: Would the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge perhaps that the commentator he is talking about, although he writes an interesting column, at one time wanted to join us on the Floor of the House, because he is an ex-Conservative parliamentary candidate? Maybe that contributes to his particular cynicism.

Mr. Forman: The reason I believe it right on balance to support this particular motion, particularly that part of it relating to Members' salaries, is that in the first place it would make it a little easier for the House to move upwards to the rate recommended either in the Boyle recommendations or the more ambitious recommendation of the House resolution of 22nd July 1975. We have to bear that in mind because, as other hon. Members have said, there is never a right time for hon. Members to influence the upward movement of their own salaries.
Unless we pay Members of Parliament better than they are paid now, we shall not get enough of the very best people coming into the House of Commons. I say that as one who has had recent contacts with the outside world. Many people in the business world feel that this is true.
Another reason is that we should no longer encourage the cult of the "part-timer" in politics. There is a sound place for a part-time MP, according to


the definitions which have been given in this debate, but we do not want to turn it into a cult. If we are looking for more imaginative developments, we should be thinking more about the pattern in America regarding what they call "in and outers". By that are meant people who come into Congress—in the case of the United States—or into Parliament, maybe for only the equivalent of two or three Parliaments—a relatively short time—who may be lured in, as it were, by the prospect of a very good full-time salary which is roughly comparable with that which they have been obtaining outside.
I think that the House would probably benefit—and I am humble in saying this—from a higher turnover of fully paid full-time Members. This would mean that we should have perhaps more MPs arriving in their middle or late twenties, who are very under-represented at the moment, and, equally, we could have more coming in at the age of 55 or 60 when they have had a successful career in some other field and are able to bring all the weight and advantage of that experience to bear in our debates.
Another reason is that substantial sums are at last to be allocated to the secretarial/research staff. It is absolutely right that money of this kind should be earmarked for specific purposes and this ought to be reflected before very long in the higher quality and effectiveness of MPs' work, both in constituency welfare work and scrutinising legislation and countering the Executive, which must be one of the fundamental purposes of any good parliamentarian.
My final reason—and this is something that no one has mentioned so far—is that inadequately paid MPs are bound to be more vulnerable, with the best will in the world, to the wrong kind of outside pressure and outside connections and payment for services rendered. I am not going to name any names or make any specific allegations, because I am not qualified to do so. We now have the Register of Members' Interests and that is some protection, because at least the public can know what those interests are.
I believe that industrial, professional or trade union experience and connections are good and that the House should have

that experience on which to draw. I equally believe that it is absolutely right that hon. Members should have the option of representing and speaking up for outside interests. I do not want any kind of House which is exclusive or seeks to proscribe certain activities, but, on the other hand, we should be much better served on the whole if we could encourage more fully paid full-time Members of Parliament.
I would end merely by quoting something Sir Winston Churchill was reputed to have said, as indicated in Lord Moran's book:
It is all wrong when Members go about scratching a meal here and a meal there. I am certain that it is most dangerous to keep them in poverty; it is just asking for trouble.
On my last point I can quote no one better than Sir Winston Churchill.

2.30 p.m.

Sir John Hall: I wish to make only two brief observations. The first relates to the statement by the Leader of the House, echoed by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the £312 envisaged in the motion was a contribution to moving towards the £8,000 recommended by Lord Boyle last year. I remind the House that in his report Lord Boyle attached the highest importance to the implementation in full and without delay of the recommendations on salaries and allowances. The £312 is by no means an advance towards the £8,000. It is a partial recognition of the fall in the value of money since our salaries were increased a year ago. It does nothing to move towards the £8,000 in real terms, as recommended by Lord Boyle.
In a premature reply to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) the Leader of the House said that it would be wrong to deny hon. Members the £312 recommended because many of them were in need of it. He said that if we accepted the amendment Members of Parliament would for ever be deprived of the extra £6 a week. That is untrue. The motion proposes that the increase should be backdated to 13th June. There is a period of about six weeks between then and 1st August, when the new pay round starts. It would be simpler to support the proposal in the amendment as from August this year on the


basis of £4 a week. Members would lose only a small amount, representing the six weeks' increase less tax between 13th June and the time of the next pay round. If we accept the motion, Members will be denied any further increase until 12 months from the date of the last increase.

Mr. William Price: What I said earlier was that if we adopted the amendment we should be further away than ever from the £8,000 and if one day we decided to move to that figure it would be much more difficult to get it accepted by the public.

Sir J. Hall: With all respect, that is nonsense. The amount involved is so small that it represents no move towards the implementation of the £8,000. If the amendment is accepted, the difference will be marginal.
We are not moving towards the £8,000; we are in small part restoring the fall in the value of money since the salary was last increased. No one in the country, outside certain self-employed people who do not have the same control over their income, has not had his income restored to its January 1972 value. I can think of no organised body of workers in that position.
Those are the only two matters I wish to raise and I hope that they will be borne in mind when the Minister replies.

2.32 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: There seems to be no satisfactory solution to the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) suggested a more rapid turnover of Members of Parliament. We are probably all interested in that idea in the abstract but prefer that the changeover should occur to others rather than to ourselves.
The way the Government are putting forward the case is that the £6 and the £4 next year are in aid of public presentation. The logic of that argument is that the recommendations of the Boyle Commission were independent of the £6 a week period. The recommendations came first and the £6 a week pay policy did not apply to them. The argument is that if we award ourselves £6 a week now and leave ourselves free to bring in the second phase in 12 months' time the move towards £8,000 will be more acceptable to the public.
That is a self-deceiving argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall) said, the £312 a year is a very small sum. When, ultimately, on one highly unpopular day, we move towards the Boyle recommendation it will not be, I hope, to £,800 but to £8,000 plus what has happened to the currency during the intervening years. So there will be a substantial problem, and that is what we let ourselves in for when by our lack of courage at the time we considered the Boyle recommendations.
The £312 is a fleabite. We might as well ask ourselves whether from the point of view of public presentation we would do better to forget about the £6 and move on to the £4. That solution lacks the complication of differential payments to Members and would be very much more acceptable. The public will regard the present proposals as slightly sharp because they thought that the £6 limit applied to the Boyle recommendations. They were wrong—or at least it is arguable. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) took the view that it did apply. It is a fine question whether we take the date of the report or the date of the resolution of the House. I think that we would be wiser to put that behind us and to write off the £6.
The lesson we can learn from the debate is that this is an awfully mucky business and the sooner we get rid of this procedure the better. The Leader of the House was under the impression that this was a fairly modern problem. He went back to 1776. But it goes back much further. Members of the House have been paid since the Middle Ages. That practice gradually fell into desuetude but was not altogether abolished until the beginning of last century. It fell into desuetude because it was so unpopular—hon. Members even took court action to enforce payment of their remuneration—because our remuneration was charged on local funds. There is an awful row now that we are paid out of the Consolidated Fund. If we imagine Members being paid out of the rates, we can understand how unpopular was that system. All through the centuries there was controversy and recrimination.
The Grand Jury of the County of Lancaster indicted the Sheriff for agreeing to pay the hon. Member for Lancaster £10 for the Session when a perfectly adequate


man could have been got for £5. On another occasion, to avoid an unseemly brawl, a Member agreed to commute his demand for a barrel of salted herrings at Christmas. Wrangles of that sort went on all through the centuries until gradually the payment of Members was faded out. It is not long since it was abolished and it was later reintroduced. Let us not get the idea that there has ever been a time in the past 600 or 700 years when Members' pay has not been a quarrelsome, tiresome and unpopular question.
I see no escape from this quandary, except the link that the House looked for on the last occasion when we debated the matter. We must have that link. This sort of debate on a Friday or at any other time is undignified, embarrassing and useless. We all know that we have to do something today. The only question is which of two rather finely balanced systems we adopt.
When we reach the Bill, which most of us dislike, we shall say that this must never happen again, but we shall have to pass the Bill because it has been acted upon by the accountants for 10 months and we cannot unscramble it. The lesson is that we must not have another day like this next time. We must have the clear-cut courage to decide what is to be done, make the system automatic and forget about it.

2.38 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) that next year we should have the courage to make up our minds and settle the matter properly. Whether or not we shall do that is just as doubtful as it has ever been.
I hope that I shall not emulate the Leader of the House in the confusion of his remarks. I say that in the kindest possible way. I have never heard him more diffident or more uncertain of the treacherous ground on which he was walking.
The sombre fact behind today's debate is that Members of Parliament are not greatly loved, nor are their hardships a cause of widespread public sympathy or anguish. On the whole, the public endure with remarkable equanimity the fact that Members of Parliament from time to time suffer hardship. It is even sadder that

Parliament itself is not greatly cherished by the public. That is a much more serious matter. Only too often—it is easy to say this from the Opposition Benches—Parliament takes much of the blame that belongs to the Executive, which it no longer effectively controls and which it barely seems to influence. The only exception to that is the left wing of the Labour Party which, despite the impoverished quality of its arguments, seems to have, and has had for 25 years, a singularly sombre influence over Government policies.
The subject of Members' salaries and pensions is never an agreeable one. When, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, it becomes intermingled with pay policy, it becomes a quite intolerably awkward subject with which to deal.
Of course, as many of my hon. Friends and some Labour Members have said, the timing is never right. But today the timing is very exceptionally wrong. It is singularly unfortunate for us to be debating this subject today immediately after the statement made by the Chancellor yesterday and all the arguments which have been taking place behind closed doors on that subject. It will hardly be understood outside Parliament.
Further, this measure immediately precedes the publication of the Boyle Report, which is even now available and in the hands of the Prime Minister. One of the most stupid characteristics of public life is the trouble we take to persuade eminent and able people to give us the benefit of their advice and then either put it in pigeon holes or even deny ourselves the opportunity of reading it before we take action. It is to be hoped that when the Boyle Report does come out it will at least be seriously considered; and, if its conclusions are rejected, let us reject them for clear and good reasons.

Mr. Dan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman's colleagues have offered the immaculate solution. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Opposition have made up their minds as to what the linkage should be with? It is within my memory that about 15 years ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) suggested a precise linkage.

Mr. Peyton: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the acknowledgement


that the suggestions of my hon. Friends are immaculate. Indeed, they always are. I shall come later to the question of linkage. I want for the moment to discuss the question of having two classes of Members of Parliament which has worried many hon. Members on both sides. Differing views have been expressed, but most speakers have come out clearly against this.
I warmly endorse the views of those who say that we ought not to lay down some ridiculous rule that Members should be limited to their one occupation of being Members of Parliament. Incidentally, this place would be the poorer for it. Before anybody interrupts me unkindly, let me admit that I certainly earn money outside this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) has pointed out that if it is true that this increase is made on the basis, as the Leader of the House said, of a need, it is exceedingly odd that in judging that need neither unearned income nor inherited wealth is taken into consideration. The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly continue to seek to justify that part of his proposal.
It would be exceedingly undesirable to lay down any rule about Members devoting their whole time here. Anybody who had the opportunity of listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) had the point made very clear to him. My hon. Friend rightly poured ridicule on the suggestion.
I agree entirely with the suggestion that if a Member of Parliament does not satisfy his constituents—it is only his constituents that he has to satisfy—they have the remedy. However, the degree of satisfaction or otherwise that he gives to his colleagues is, relatively speaking, unimportant. The last people who should presume to judge the performance of a Member are his colleagues, though they often do so.
I should like to inquire a little further: by what standards or criteria should we judge the work of a Member devoting his full time to Parliament? Is it to be by the number of speeches he makes? From some of the speeches I have heard I would greatly like to reward Members who do not make speeches at all, despite the unkind remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire,

South-West (Mr. Cormack) about one hon. Member who had been rather sparing in his remarks in this place.
Members could be rewarded on the basis of sheer volume of sound. Their attendance in this place obviously is not one of the major criteria because often those who talk about the merits of full-time Members are not particularly conspicuous by their presence in the Chamber.
There could be all sorts of ways of arriving at judgments of the usefulness or the harmlessness of Members. There would be a category for whom I would design a special rate of reward which would handsomely repay them for staying away. Though I am well aware that not all our selections to fit that category would be identical, it is nevertheless an idea which I am sure we should all like to pursue if the proposal to have two-tier Members of Parliament goes any further.
I shall not take any of the salary increase proposed under this measure, whatever the outcome. I think it right to say that in case it should be represented that the way I vote today is in any way influenced by personal consideration.
The question of the salaries of Members of Parliament is always a very disagreeable one, but we have now got ourselves into a quite intolerable tangle. This has arisen from the admixture of pay policy into an already difficult subject. We are now confronted with the idea of having a second tier of Members. We have the very complicated pension adjustment which is necessary to adjust the adjustment of last year. We have on top of that the other rather strange result of the next motion, namely, that some members of the Administration are to be told that provision for money is to be made for them today but they must not take it.
This is a very odd way of conducting our affairs and I hope that the Lord President, with whose discomforture I unusually sympathise today, will share it with his legal advisers and impress upon them that on other occasions the thing should not be done in quite such a ridiculous fashion.
The idea of linking the salaries of Members with those of outsiders was rejected by the Review Body and on the whole for good reasons. I do not believe that it would produce that kind of conceivable solution which would relieve us


of worry as we are sometimes tempted to think. I personally reject the notion and stress that I am expressing only a personal view here.
We have had an interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby moved an amendment designed to comply strictly with incomes policy. In present circumstances I think that is very desirable. It is also designed to obviate the two-tier membership which emerges from the Government's proposal. It has another effect of getting away from the automatic and annual increase which makes it look like a routine. On the whole, particularly bearing in mind the rather disappointing comments of the Lord President on what the amendment would do, I think we shall be well advised to support it in the Lobby unless the Government can produce a much more powerful argument than they have yet done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford, as I have already said, poured some refreshing scorn on the very facile idea of whole-time Members of Parliament. I go back to what I was saying just now. He made it very clear that there was no way in which this question could be decided save by ourselves and that we ought to have the courage to do it properly and to face this question with more candour and frankness than we have in the past.
The hon. Members for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) and for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) found the two-tier idea wholly acceptable. I rather enjoyed the spectacle of the hon. Member for Keighley, who is a proud militant egalitarian, struggling with the idea of differentials which he had to admit were acceptable and, indeed, inevitable in any form of human existence. The hon. Member made a notable move forward this afternoon into a field which could be called common sense.
I very much regret that I missed the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). As I understand it, I would have agreed with most of what he said, and in particular his casting of doubt on whether the quality of Members of Parliament had risen comparably with the salaries and other rewards. I think he was absolutely right in saying that. I believe he was right

also to pour scorn on the idea of second-tier Members of Parliament.
Others beside my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) have called attention to the question of the timing—the really disastrously unfortunate timing—of the introduction of this proposal.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) made a somewhat autobiographical speech but came out firmly in favour of Members of Parliament being free to engage in outside activities. The point has again and again been made on both sides of the House that to pursue the idea of whole-time Members of Parliament would land us in one of the most disastrous, barren and interminable arguments without the possibility of reward which anyone could contemplate even in this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall) pointed out a most important thing that we should remember, that this is certainly not a significant step forward towards the £8,000 which the Review Body recommended. It is instead a very half-hearted step in recovering the ground which has been lost. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, who made the perfectly justified charge that in this matter we were very much given to self-deception and to a lack of courage, and that we were now paying the price for that lack of courage.
As I have said, I believe that the best course for the House this afternoon would be to vote for the amendment which was proposed so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, though we shall listen with attention to what the Government say in reply.

2.55 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): I agree with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that this is always a difficult and in many ways miserable debate. It is not easy to determine one's own salary. It is always a difficult judgment to make. I have listened to all the debates on Members' pay and allowances since I have been in the House, and the one thing of which I am certain is that each one is even more distasteful than the one that preceded it.
I wonder whether we get a truly representative debate. I suspect that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who need the increase but who are too embarrassed to say so. I believe that to be the position, and I have talked to many hon. Members in recent weeks.
I also know that the matter of the £6 increase is not likely to be regarded as of top priority by most of our constituents. I appreciate, as many have pointed out, that there is anxiety about timing. I doubt whether the time will ever be right.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) and many others who took up this point I would say that, as I understood it, this was not intended to be a debate about whether Members of Parliament should be full time or whether they should have outside interests. I did not understand my right hon. Friend the Lord President to say anything in his opening speech that would have led people along that path. I understand the debate to be about financial assistance to those who do not have substantial outside interests and the fact that those who do should comply with the £8,500 limit.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman has laid his finger on the point unintentionally. The increase in salary was intended as assistance. That is precisely what a salary is not intended to be. A salary is intended as a reward for services rendered, and nothing else.

Mr. Price: I have no wish to fall out with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with practically everything that he said earlier.
I am not entirely sure whether the Opposition are arguing that we should not have any money now, or whether we should implement Boyle today. That point is not clear to me. I have listened to the debate for four hours and I am no more clear now on the matter than I was when we began.

Sir John Hall: The point made by my right hon. Friend with great clarity is that if this is intended to help those in most need of help, it is surprising, to say the least, that incomes received by hon. Members from other sources—dividends

and other forms of wealth—are not taken into account.

Mr. Price: I can get into enough trouble dealing with matters within my own ministerial responsibility. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go up that path.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman has a difficulty here. It is only 12 months ago that the Government's recommendation was that a salary of £5,750 a year was adequate for Members of Parliament. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that in the intervening 12 months poverty has struck so widely and unexpectedly amongst our colleagues that they are now desperate for another £6 a week and could not even wait another month or so to receive £4, as my hon. Friends and I suggest?

Mr. Price: I do not accept that. Some Members need money more than others. I put it no higher than that. I shall deal a little later with the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Many Opposition Members have, quite rightly, spoken about the two-tier system of payment. I thought that the Lord President had made clear—I share his view—that this is not particularly satisfactory, and I can only repeat his assurance that it will not be a permanent feature of our pay structure.
I wish to express agreement with the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) if I may—if I have to ask permission to do that—since I thought that he was absolutely right to take offence when the London living allowance and mileage allowance were described as perks. They are not perks, as he rightly pointed out. They are a claim against what we believe to be legitimate expenses.
The hon. Member for Chingford asked about aggregation and the £8,500 limit. I understand that anyone receiving more than £8,500, whether from one job, two jobs or three, has been expected to comply with the limit.
The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) wanted an outside body. We should not, he said, do it ourselves. If I may say so, that is why we gave it to Boyle. We have had an outside body. The trouble was that, for reasons best known to the House, we decided that it was not appropriate at that time to implement what the outside body asked for


by the hon. Gentleman had recommended. It is interesting to note that, if we did what Boyle recommended, we should today be talking about an increase of more than £40 a week, not the £6 to which the hon. Gentleman takes exception.
We are, therefore, in difficulty over that matter, and I think that I am entitled to say that those who feel as gravely offended as the hon. Gentleman does—he used some powerful language, and I do not object to that—are entitled to do what the right hon. Member for Yeovil has just done and say that they will not draw the money.

Mr. Boscawen: I do not propose to make that matter public because I regard it as private to myself, but I may say that that would be my inclination. When I refer to an outside body, I mean an outside body which we cannot ignore. We ignored Boyle; we put it aside. I mean an outside body of which we have to take notice.

Mr. Price: I am delighted to say that that would be a matter for the House, not for me.
What the House is being asked to support today seems to me to be perfectly reasonable and a far more sensible way of dealing with Members' pay than we have had in the past. I believe that we have suffered more than all else from a crazy system under which we have given ourselves an increase every four or five years and made it a relatively big one. People know all about the size of the increase. What they are not fully aware of is the length of the wait which preceded it.
There is a problem here, but, having listened to these debates over so long, as I said earlier, I have the clear impression that what most hon. Members would have preferred was a system according to which we moved as fast as we could, perhaps, but no faster than we ought, a system whereby we rewarded ourselves adequately, and this is where I have to point out—I shall not convince the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), though I thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) did very well—that what worries me is that, even if it is a relatively small amount this time, according to his amendment, it would have the effect of setting us even

further back from the £8,000. The day will come, presumably, when the House will decide that it will implement Boyle, and all that I am saying is that the narrower the gap between what we receive at that moment and the £8,000, the better it will be for all of us. That is the only argument which I have with the hon. Member for Blaby.

Mr. John Lee: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Price: I really must get on.

Mr. Forman: Since the hon. Gentleman referred to me directly, will he throw some light on a matter which greatly concerns me? I share the view of my hon. Friends that the two-tier element in this situation is most unsatisfactory, and the Minister has agreed. But does he agree that doubly unsatisfactory is the distinction between earnings and income, which I regard as just not sustainable? Why has he not used the notion of income rather than earnings?

Mr. Price: All I can say is that I am given the job of talking about a pay policy, so far as it is my responsibility at all, which makes that position fairly clear, and I thought that the Lord President dealt with it. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the policy is wrong, that is not, I believe, a matter for this debate or for me.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is resisting my amendment, I gather, on the ground that he wants to go gradually towards the £8,000. My amendment would enable us to go by £208 towards the £8,000. Therefore, it should be acceptable to the Minister. Moreover, it would eliminate the two-tier Membership which he agrees is undesirable. So why not accept the amendment?

Mr. Price: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. The best reason for accepting his amendment is that it gets over the difficulty of the two-tier system. That I accept. But what I find objectionable and wrong about it is that we should lose a complete year—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—yes, and we shall be £312 down on what we receive, as there is every reason to believe that we shall have a right to 4½ per cent. next year. The hon. Gentleman's amendment asks us to lose a complete year.

Sir John Hall: Sir John Hall rose—

Mr. Price: I really must get on. This ought to be the last intervention.

Sir John Hall: I am sorry to intervene, but I am sure that, on reflection, the Minister will agree that he is mistaken. In the first place, what would be lost would be the increase between 13th June and 1st August, which, after tax even at the minimum rate would be about £16. Then there is the difference between the amount which would be awarded on 1st August of £208 and the other amount which would otherwise be £312, which would be only about £100, which, after tax, is about £65. I cannot, therefore, see where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures.

Mr. Price: Whichever way we do it, we shall lose one or the other, and that makes the gap between what we get and what Boyle recommended even wider. I think that it is far better to treat ourselves as the rest of the country expects to be treated, that is, with relatively small increases at regular intervals. In my view, there is no reason why we should this year receive a penny more than others, and, on the same basis, I see no reason why we should receive less.
There are, of course, those who believe that we should not have any increase at all—in the past, in the present, or in the future. There are some who believe that we should not be paid, and I fear that some of them have seats in the Press Gallery. To them and their £25,000-a-year editors, anyone wishing to serve in the House of Commons should, apparently, prove his good intentions by committing himself, his wife and his family to permanent and self-inflicted penury—that good government and honest competent politicians go hand in hand with poverty.
I do not propose to spend much time on my colleagues in the Gallery or those in Fleet Street, save that I wish to say that what has always struck me as odd is that those who approach Members of Parliament with the maximum bitterness are those who are either trying to find a seat for themselves or have given up hope. Those such as Mr. Woodrow Wyatt, I may say, treat us with even greater bitterness when they have lost

two safe seats, so we do not pay too much attention to them.
However, I suspect that Mr. Andrew Alexander of the Daily Mail—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I shall deal with his attendance record in a moment, if I may. Mr. Alexander comes into the category of those who fail, though I could be wrong about that and, wishing to be charitable, I suppose that there is somewhere a Conservative association which shares his views. What I do know, however, is that last week Mr. Alexander wrote the most scurrilous piece about Members of Parliament since Alastair Burnet produced an editorial on Members' pay headed "The Gravy Train." But Mr. Burnet, who when lecturing Members of Parliament earning less than £5,000 a year, was collecting £30,000 for helping to bankrupt the Daily Express, has, thankfully, moved to greener pastures, and we are spared his abuse.
Mr. Alexander, however, is more than willing, full of honesty, hope and charity, to write:
Wakey, wakey. If the voters knew how little their MP does for his money would they be quite so happy to give him yet another rise "—
and then we have 1,500 highly paid words of sheer total abuse. Much of it was opinion. I took exception to one of the paragraphs already quoted:
The main role of MPs outside that of dealing with constituents' problems—and there is scant evidence that they listen with real care to constituents in any case".
I regard that as a deliberate and offensive lie.

Mr. Russell Kerr: What does my hon. Friend expect from scum?

Mr. Price: He had a good deal to say about attendance in the Chamber. No one would argue that it could not be better. For instance, I think that there should be a far larger attendance when I am speaking.
The next paragraph I shall quote is a classic. It reads:
Yet the cry of visitors to the House of Commons these days is constantly: 'But where are all the MPs?' They may well ask.
But those who come here ask a second question—namely, "Why are there all those empty seats up above Mr. Speaker's


chair?" That is what they ask me. I say "Comrades"—"most of my people belong to my party—those are for absent journalists." I tell my old associates that one day I intend to do some serious research into the attendance of journalists. I note that Mr. Andrew Alexander has not been with us all day. The editors might like to see the results of my research.
I shall deal briefly with Members' perks, a matter that stimulates great concern in the newspaper business. There is continual reference to MPs having looked after their perks. I accept, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, that we have made substantial improvements. Most of those improvements have taken place in the past seven or eight years. When I first came to the House—it was not all that long ago, but I have been here much longer than some of my colleagues—and I made a phone call to the Rugby town clerk on urgent constituency business, it cost me money. The more telephone calls we made in those days, the more it cost us. There used to be a man from the Post Office sitting outside the kiosk. The clock would go round and we paid when we came out. I suggest that we should not moan too much about what we get now. The system I have described was operating only eight years ago.
It is true that things are better than they were, but I am astonished that what to a Member are supposed to be perks—for example, telephones, postage, car mileage and secretarial help—are to anybody else legitimate business expenses. I have known many newspaper men at all levels and I have yet to meet one who paid out

of his own pocket for his secretary, his postage and his telephone bill.

Mr. Rathbone: Or drinks?

Mr. Price: Yes, but, having earned my living for 12 years in the newspaper industry, I do not propose to follow that one. If we told a newspaper man that such items were his perks, he would give us a rough answer. However, when they are related to us, they become part of our income.
I put it to the House that what we are doing today is right. It was the least we could do, but, for reasons that the House knows only too well, it was also the most. That is why we are in difficulty, and I recognise the difficulties about the two-tier system. I hope that those outside the House who criticise us will bear in mind that most of us are receiving £2,000 a year less than was recommended by an independent review body 18 months ago. Very few people in the country would have tolerated that sort of treatment. We have done so for reasons that I do not need to spell out.
I believe that £6 is a modest step towards a rate for the job. More important than that, it is intended to help those of our colleagues who need help most. I ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley rose—

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 31.

Division No. 273.]
AYES
[3.14 p.m.


Atkinson, Norman
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bates, Alf
Dormand, J. D.
Heller, Eric S.


Bean, R. E.
Dunn, James A.
Huckfield, Les


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bishop, E. S.
Eadle, Alex
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Boardman, H.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
English, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boyden, James (Blsh Auck)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Judd, Frank


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kelley, Richard


Cartwright, John
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Kerr, Russell


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Kilfedder, James


Cohen, Stanley
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kinnock, Nell


Coleman, Donald
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N 'w' d)
Lamborn, Harry


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Freeson, Reginald
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Cryer, Bob
Gilbert, Dr John
Lee, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Ginsburg, David
Lipton, Marcus


Davidson, Arthur
Golding, John
Luard, Evan


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Graham, Ted
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
McCartney, Hugh


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Harper, Joseph
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
MacKenzie, Gregor




Maclennan, Robert
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.


Madden, Max
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Mahon, Simon
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tinn, James


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Torney, Tom


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Urwin, T. W.


Meacher, Michael
Roper, John
Wainwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sandelson, Neville
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Miller, Mra Millie (Ilford N)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Ward, Michael


Moyle, Roland
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Weitzman, David


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)'
Whitehead, Phillip


Noble, Mike
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Orbach, Maurice
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Owen, Dr David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Woof, Robert


Park, George
Snape, Peter



Parry, Robert
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pavitt, Laurie
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. A. W. Stallard and


Pendry, Tom
Stoddart, David
Mr Thomas Cox.


Perry, Ernest
Strang, Gavin






NOES



Biggs-Davison, John
Lawson, Nigel
Sims, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Bottomley, Peter
Luce, Richard
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Dykes, Hugh
Mather, Carol
Stradling, Thomas J.


Eyre, Reginald
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Tebbit, Norman


Forman, Nigel
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Paisley, Rev Ian



Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Peyton, Rt Hon Johr
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rathbone, Tim
Mr Roger Moate and


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr Nicholas Ridley.

Question accordingly agreed to.


Question put accordingly, That the amendment be
made:—


The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 110.

Division No. 274.]
AYES
[3.25 p.m.


Bell, Ronald
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Sims, Roger


Biggs-Davison, John
Lester, Jim
Skinner, Dennis


Cormack, Patrick
Luce, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dykes, Hugh
Mather, Carol
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Eyre, Reginald
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stradling, Thomas J.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Moate, Roger
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Forman, Nigel
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Tebbit. Norman


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Grylls, Michael
Paisley, Rev Ian



Hall, Sir John
Peyton, Rt Hon John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Nigel Lawson and


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Ridley. Hon Nicholas
Mr. John Lee.





NOES



Atkinson, Norman
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Luard, Evan


Bates, Alf
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McCartney, Hugh


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bishop, E. S.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacKenzie, Gregor


Boardman, H.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maclennan, Robert


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Madden, Max


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Simon


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Gilbert, Dr John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cartwright, John
Ginsburg, David
Marks, Kenneth


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Golding, John
Meacher, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Graham, Ted
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cryer, Bob
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Davidson, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Noble, Mike


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Huckfield, Les
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Owen, Dr David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Park, George


Deakins, Eric
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Parry, Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie


Dormand, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Dunn, James A.
Kelley, Richard
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kerr, Russell
Price, William (Rugby)


Eadie, Alex
Kilfedder, James
Richardson, Miss Jo


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


English, Michael
Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Marcus
Rodgers, William (Stockton)







Roper, John
Stoddart, David
Ward, Michael


Sandelson, Neville
Strang, Gavin
Weitzman, David


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.
Whitehead, Phillip


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)'
Tomney, Frank
Woof, Robert


Silverman, Julius
Urwin, T. W.



Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Snape, Peter
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Mr. A. W. Stallard.




Question accordingly negatived.


The parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Cocks): I claim the main Question be now put.


Main Question put accordingly:


The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 17.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That in the opinion of this House—

(1) the salary payable to any Member at the rate of £5,750 a year and the salary payable to any Member at the rate of £3,750 a year while he is the Comptroller or Vice-

Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, a Junior Lord of the Treasury or an Assistant Government or Opposition Whip should be increased by £312 a year from 13th June 1976;

(2) the sum of £112.50 a year with which a Member is credited by way of supplement in pursuance of paragraph (5) of the resolution of the House of 22nd July 1975 about


Members' salaries and pensions should, in the case of a Member who draws the increase in salary mentioned in paragraph (1) above, be reduced by £15·60 a year from 13th June 1976 and, in the case of a Member who draws a fraction only of the increase, be reduced by that fraction of £15·60 a year from that date;

(3) the annual limit of £3,200 on secretarial allowance should be increased to £3,450 for the year ending on 31st March 1977 and to £3,512 for any subsequent year ending on 31st March.

Orders of the Day — MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That the Junior Ministers' and Other Salaries Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.—[Mr. Foot.]

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: It is not in any sense because I was unable to contribute to the last debate that I rise to speak on this Order, although the issues are somewhat similar. I first wish to complain about the drafting of the Order. The Order states that Parliamentary Secretaries other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury shall be eligible for the £312 increase whereas it is intended that only Parliamentary Secretaries in another place are to receive that increase, or so I am informed by a letter which the Lord President was kind enough to send to me in response to my amendment, which has not been selected.
The letter says that:
Using the provisions of this section, out intention is that only Parliamentary Secretaries in the Lords will receive the increase, as I said in my statement on 12th July—but this was the only way in which we could achieve that object.
The Lord President has devised a new form of government, which is that what he says goes.
I want strongly to object to the new oracular powers which he has taken upon himself. It is his say-so, in a hitherto private letter to me, which tells us that although the Order says that all Parliamentary Secretaries are to get the increase, he has decided that they are not to get it. I realise the power of patronage held by the right hon. Gentleman. I realise that any Parliamentary Secretary in the Commons, like his hon. Friends sitting on either side of him, who is rash

enough to say "the Order has gone through and I want my £312" would find himself dealt with summarily—and he would not even be eligible for compensation on dismissal or redundancy payments.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is not the hon. Gentleman overlooking the Appropriation Act, which will presumably provide that certain Parliamentary Secretaries will receive rate X and certain others rate Y? Is not that the Act which constitutes the legal authority?

Mr. Ridley: I must explain to the hon. Gentleman that the Order is based on the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 in Schedule I of which there is a table of all the categories of Ministers. The item:
Parliamentary Secretary other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury
is lifted out of that and placed into the Order as a category able to receive the increase. This would therefore empower the Government to pay increases to all Parliamentary Secretaries. It has not been enacted or moved or accepted by this House that this should be limited to those in another place.
It is, of course, an extremely sloppy piece of drafting. The right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in saying that this was the only way the Government could achieve the object. It was not at all. They could have legislated. The right hon. Gentleman, as he should have done, could have brought a Bill before the House so that we could debate the proposition that two noble Lords in another place should be given an increase whereas the many Parliamentary Secretaries in this place should not. It is that proposition which deserves serious consideration by the House and which we should be able to pursue at length and seek to amend.
That is quite wrong on two grounds. First, Parliamentary Secretaries in this place are, in my opinion, the dogsbodies of the Executive. I should declare a past interest, having been one. They work very hard. They have a very heavy burden to carry. They have to reply to the Adjournment debates when their seniors have gone home to bed. They have to do the bulk of the Department's letters. They have to deal with a whole


mass of work and at the same time they have very little say in what happens. It is a rare Secretary of State who gives his Under-Secretary of State much opportunity or authority in the Department. I think that they are deserving of an increase and I am disappointed that they should be left out.
Secondly, it is odd that the Government feel that those in another place should be rewarded at this time. Those in another place do not seem to me to have a problem of keeping a constituency. They do not seem to me to have anything like the burden of parliamentary work which the Parliamentary Secretaries in this House have. They do not normally have anything like the departmental load. Yet these two noble Lords have been singled out from the whole of the Government to be so rewarded. I wonder how it is that they should be the sole beneficiaries of the Government's munificence on this occasion.
I have noted time and again the Government's desire to preserve and, indeed, enhance another place. Here is another example. It is a strange phenomenon that as part of the country's incomes policy the only substantial beneficiaries in the Government from the £312 are those Parliamentary Secretaries who sit in the House of Lords and those Gilbert and Sullivan characters, the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms and the Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard. They are the deserving cases, as it turns out, in the Government's incomes policy.
The problem is the limit of £8,500. I admired the witty speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office when he lambasted the absent gentlemen in the Gallery upstairs and made the clear distinction that there were part-time and full-time Press reporters. He did not suggest that they should be paid according to full-time and part-time scales, but perhaps that will follow when he has listened to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and been converted by him to the principle of part-time and full-time.
The hon. Gentleman advanced some good Socialist egalitarian principles in regard to pay. I am not an egalitarian. I do not agree with egalitarianism. I do not believe a word of it. I have voted against

all incomes policies and will continue to do so. I do not believe in them. I find it difficult when the Leader of the House, writing to me about the £8,500 limit, says:
I recognise that compliance with this guidance may not have been universal under the present voluntary policy, but I hope you will agree that it is incumbent on Members to be seen to be observing the spirit of the policy to the full.
I do not agree with that. It is incumbent upon me to make it clear that I reject the policy, and I will do so.
In relation to my own position—and this should be said in public—although I think I am over the £8,500 limit in total earnings, I am going to claim the £312, I am going to pay tax on it, and I shall donate what is left after tax to charity. I shall do so as a protest against the £8,500 limit and the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it should apply to me or to other people.
I also want to take exception to the right hon. Gentleman's oracular utterances. I asked him for a justification for applying the £8,500 limit to those with several occupations. No doubt other Ministers in the Government and other noble Lords who have been excluded from this cherished list are being excluded because their emoluments from their membership of this House or from ministerial salaries are over £8,500. He wrote to me that although there was nothing about this in the White Paper
… on 23rd July 1975 I said that 'no one earning £8,500 or more should take an increase of any kind in the coming year whether in the form of increments, prior commitments or anything else.'
I think that it is hard for the citizenry to have to sit in the Gallery and listen to what the right hon. Gentleman says or to plough through Hansard in order to determine what they are or are not allowed to do.
If that is what the Government's policy has been—and this is the first time I have heard that those with more than one source of income were supposed to total them up—it should have been in the White Paper. It should perhaps have been in the legislation. But it is not in the White Paper and it is not in the legislation. It is hard that this new doctrine should be trotted out and given authority simply because the right hon. Gentleman says it. He has said many things in his life, and we admire many


of his speeches, but the fact that he has said this is not sufficient for him not to allow these Parliamentary Secretaries to claim the increase. It is a curious way to run a Government to require people to behave according to what the right hon. Gentleman is now dredging up from what he said last July.
Nor do I think that the definition of the £8,500 is clear when we consider the particular brand of Socialism in the Government. As we have pointed out, members of another place very often have inherited wealth, although whether any of them are included in this lot I do not know. But that unearned income does not have to be aggregated with their other earnings or ministerial salaries. So there is the curious position that noble Lords mentioned in the list who go out and earn extra money or have highly paid ministerial appointments will be denied an increase whereas those with private wealth are to be allowed one from public funds.
It is a strange doctrine if we are to have this upper limit and to apply it in difficult situations such as those of Members of both Houses. The matter is not straightforward but complex. If we are to apply that nostrum, we should spend a little time on defining the term "earnings" and on defining what sort of deductions may be made from earnings.

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Parliamentary and Other Pensions and Salaries Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thomas Cox]

Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day — MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES

Mr. Ridley: The danger is that in taking this limit of £8,500 we have no idea what the definition of earnings should be. A noble Lord or an hon. Member may have various forms of unearned income, and we believe that this is to be exempted. But suppose he has genuine expenses which can be offset against his taxation liability. Are these to count against the limit?
It would make sense to say that the £8,500 limit was income, leaving aside expenses and allowances declared to the tax inspector. It would make sense to say which forms of earned and invest-meat income should be included and which should not. There are a number of different sorts of income and this is a complex matter.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would the hon. Member agree that there is another case which may be very relevant, namely the profit from a farm or estate which a person manages? Is that regarded as earned income?

Mr. Ridley: If the noble Lord or the hon. Member runs the farm himself, that is earned income and counts against the limit. If he appoints a manager and takes the profit, that would be investment income which would be excluded. That illustrates the sort of nonsense we are perpetuating.
I can easily make any sum I want out of my income by adding in or taking out things which have not been clarified. I am not claiming that altogether my income would be less than £8,500. I believe that it is more than that, but as a protest against this ridiculous control I shall claim the £312, even though I shall give it to charity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I have been hesitating for a while. We are debating junior Ministers' and other salaries. I should draw his attention to the fact that he is straying into the subject matter of the previous business. But perhaps he has now passed that point.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Would my hon. Friend agree that we should have the view of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) on the distinction between part-time and full-time junior Ministers and how it should be applied in the case of this Order?

Mr. Ridley: I have already suggested that noble Lords who are Parliamentary Secretaries have a much lesser burden than hon. Members. They have no constituencies and not so much parliamentary business. But although they are part-time Parliamentary Secretaries in another place, they are the only ones who will


receive the increase. That is typical of the nonsense in making an Order such as this.
The Parliamentary Secretary described this increase which everyone will get if their income is low enough as "a necessary increase." He said that hon. Gentlemen needed it. Do the Government think that the Solicitor-General for Scotland needs an increase? He will be paid £8,062. Will the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, who will be paid £6,812 under this Order, need an increase? Is this the Socialist definition of need? These are the grounds on which we were sold the last motion. We were told that there were hon. Members in this House who were so impoverished that they had to have the £312 to avoid difficulties.

Mr. Russell Kerr: We have not all got your inherited wealth.

Mr. Ridley: Whenever I have felt the need of an increase I have taken it upon myself to go out and earn some money, and that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
We have been told that some hon. Members need an increase. I would like to know whether the need exists among those who are mentioned in the Order. I very much doubt that it does. The Socialist egalitarian approach is being pressed as a prime priority above every other consideration. Need is not the basis of the Order.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) made much of the independent Review Body. If Lord Boyle's advice is being rejected perhaps we could ask the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) to become the arbiter of our salaries in due course because he will have the power to impose over our sovereignty. We would not be able to disagree with a directive from Brussels on how much we should be paid. And who better than the right hon. Gentleman, when he will receive £60,000 a year tax free, so we understand. He could assess what we should be paid from a position of impartiality. I throw that suggestion in as a way of helping the Parliamentary Secretary.
This Order, like the motion before it, is nonsense. It is a result of the prejudices of the Labour Party with its misguided incomes policy served up in a sort of public relations sauce. I find it extremely distasteful, and the drafting of the Order is a piece of real sleight of hand. I hope that somewhere some Parliamentary Secretary in this miserable Administration will be strong enough and courageous enough to claim his full salary, the £312 extra he is granted by this Order. Otherwise Orders, laws, motions and Acts of this House mean nothing.
The Lord President said that although the Order provides that Parliamentary Secretaries are to have an increase of £312, they will not get it. What is the more important of the two? It is the Lord President's word. It overrides the motion which the House will pass. In the same way, the £8,500 limit derives not from legislation but from what the Lord President said on 23rd July.
I object strongly to the Lord President's desire to govern by diktat, to lay down what shall be by what he says—

Mr. Powell: Government by Hansard.

Mr. Ridley: That is an apt phrase, but these matters are not yet in Hansard.

Mr. Powell: The statement is in Hansard.

Mr. Ridley: The letter sent to me which says that junior Ministers are not to receive the increase if they are in the Commons is in Hansard only because I quoted it. It will appear in the Hansard of today's proceedings.
I therefore personally believe that my hon. Friends should vote against the Order as they voted against the last motion, more as a protest against the whole way in which this matter has been handled and in the hope of defeating the payroll vote which, after all, on this occasion will be voting for its own pay.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: If the situation were as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) described it, there would be something deeply


worrying which would need to be dealt with. He is suggesting that we are about to pass into the law of the land a provision dealing with certain salaries but that that will not be implemented, contrary to the law of the land, because the Lord President does not intend to do so in certain circumstances. I do not doubt that the Minister who winds up the debate will be better able to put the position correctly and authoritatively than I can, but that charge should not be allowed to stand for one second longer than necessary.
As I understand it, there is no truth in the suggestion. In his long experience of legislation in this House the hon. Member will surely have some across many items which provide that money may be spent up to a certain level and for certain purposes out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. I think that he will find that that is the situation under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act, which we are in the course of seeking to amend. For the money actually to be paid in those circumstances requires not only the Act which, to use the language of the American Congress which is curiously applicable in this case, authorises expenditure, but also the appropriation Act to appropriate it. Quite simply, the money cannot be paid unless the appropriation Act authorises the payment.
Therefore, the junior Minister in the House of Lords whom the hon. Member invited to make a claim—

Mr. Ridley: I invited a junior Minister who is not eligible for it, so he would have to be in the Commons. The Order allows junior Ministers in the House of Lords to claim it.

Mr. Cunningham: If the junior Minister made a claim on the basis of the amended Act, if the Order passes today, it would not be a valid claim because there would not be subsequent legislation to authorise that payment. I cannot state that authoritatively, but it is my understanding of the situation, and that is why the Lord President is not overruling statute law. God help him if he does, because he will then have trouble not just from the Opposition if he gets up to that kind of game. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury should know enough to realise that that just will not happen.
These motions arise because of a feature of the pay policy. The hon. Member does not agree with that feature or with any feature of any pay policy. That policy has been imposed on the rest of the country, although without statutory backing. Whatever we do must comply with that pay policy. The result in the case of the complex situation of Members' and Ministers' pay is even more anomalous than in the case of other people. There is no real anomaly in the case of people outside the House. There may be things with which people do not agree, but there is no anomaly. In the case of Members, and of Ministers who draw two salaries, there are anomalies and there is untidiness which manifest themselves in the measures we are passing today. They are quite simply unavoidable consequences of the nature of the pay policy in the past 12 months which will not repeat themselves in the pay policy for the coming 12 months. Many difficulties arise from similar untidinesses which must simply be tolerated.
I shall vote for the Order because it is one way of doing what we all want to do. It is not the way which I would have chosen, however. The equivalent of the pay of a Member of Parliament is the attendance allowance in the House of Lords. I know that notionally the attendance allowance is supposed to cover costs. It is a great deal nearer to Members' pay than the pay of those few peers who happen to be Ministers.
The Government ought to have left the pay of House of Lords Ministers at the same rate as applies to other Ministers. To have proposed an increase in the attendance allowance of the Members of the House of Lords, if that were felt desirable, might not have been attractive to some of us, but it would have been a more logical way of dealing with the situation. It might not be attractive to some of use because more often the so-called attendance allowance is, quite wrongly, given free of tax, irrespective of whether the peer in question has deductible expenses to meet in the course of earning it.
If the peer in question has some expense, it will presumably be the expense of getting to the House of Lords and, I suppose, of eating there. Neither of those is a deductible expense for taxation purposes. Therefore, it is quite


wrong that the House of Lords attendance allowance is given tax free. It is an exception to the normal tax treatment of expenses, and the Inland Revenue has recently and quite rightly been tightening up greatly on the taxation treatment of expense payments. That ought to be extended to the House of Lords. If we want to leave the House of Lords on average with the same net position, we have to increase the gross so-called attendance allowance and charge it to tax like any other such payment and leave the Members there with the same net position. The Government ought to have directed their attention to the attendance allowance rather than to ministerial salaries and consideration must soon be given to the taxation of the House of Lords' attendance allowance.
Since the Government's proposal is one way of doing the job, though not the way I should have preferred, I shall vote for it.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I do not advise my hon. Friends to vote against the motion or to seek to delay its passage.
I very much doubt whether that unhappy breed of men known as Parliamentary Secretaries have attracted so much attention from their superiors for a long time. I know of no class of man singled out for more unpleasant, unkind and unsympathetic treatment than Parliamentary Secretaries.
When it is odious, onerous or embarrassing to be a Minister, they are fully-fledged Ministers taking their place with their colleagues—who are mostly absent. When there is anything glorious, distinguished, honourable or privileged in being a Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary is very much regarded as a totally inferior breed of animal.
The Order has shades of George Orwell. It should be called the "All Animals are Equal" Order. All Ministers are given the same amount of money under the Order, but some are a very great deal less equal than others and will not be able to take it.
This highlights the extraordinary and ponderous way in which we go about the most simple tasks. A few people are

to get some extra money and I can see no need to bring in all the others in this ponderous, dreadfully worded Order. One paragraph reads:
For the amount of salary specified in the second column of Part III or IV of Schedule 1 to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 against each of the offices specified in the first column of the following table there shall be substituted the amount of salary specified in relation to that office in the second column of the table.
This kind of thing ought not to be allowed to happen without some protest. I hope that it will not be regarded as a partisan protest. It should be made from both sides of the House and with some venom at this way of conducting our business.

4.22 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The criticisms of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) of the literary quality of the Order are most apposite and I hope that they will be taken to heart. I do not know whether the lawyers could have achieved the same objectives by stating them more agreeably, but the right hon. Gentleman's protest strikes a chord in my breast and it would be foolish not to acknowledge it.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for his remarks. I agree that the attendance allowance and expenses are proper matters for consideration, although they may form part of the Boyle Committee Report. They do not figure in the part of the report we have received but there is a further report to come. I do not know what representations have been made on this subject, but my hon. Friend was justified in what he said.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for his effective reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who renewed the debates which we had almost exactly a year ago and which I remember very well. The hon. Member explained then, with his customary brevity, his opposition to incomes policies in any form, prophesied that any policy would be unworkable and illustrated the paradoxes and contradictions that were bound to arise. Those of us who have criticised


various forms of incomes policy in the past know that this game is not so difficult to play.
But the hon. Gentleman's prophecies of the total collapse of the policy have been disproved. The policy worked far better than all the critics, including the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who made the most telling, all-embracing attacks on it, believed that it could. It succeeded and was a notable example of a successful policy of asking people to accept arrangements by consent. It worked because of the readiness of trade unionists and employers to abode by general arrangements. Nobody who worked through most of that year at the Department of Employment, as I did, would be foolish enough to suggest that it was due to unemployment or to any other such factor. People abided by the policy because they had agreed to it through their democraticv institutions.
I deny the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Down, South that there is any element in our proposals of government by Hansard. They are nothing of the sort. We have a voluntary policy applied by voluntary means. The right hon. Member has said on many occasions that it is not a criminal offence to pay more, but we expect that the vast majority of people in this country will be prepared to accept what has been generally agreed and it would have been absurd for us to say that we would not abide by the £8,500 limit. Of course this gives rise to certain anomalies in its application to some Parliamentary Secretaries, particularly in another place. That is why we have had to have special provision for dealing with this problem.
Our legal advice is that Section 1(4) of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 does not enable different amounts to be specified for different holders of a particular office specified in Schedule 1 of the Act and that therefore there is no power to make different provision for different cases.
We could have had a whole new Bill. Instead we chose what the right hon. Member for Yeovil considers to be a clumsy and awkward method. But it does the job and I invite the house to approve the motion.

4.29 p.m

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I shall be very brief. There is an important point

to which I expected the Leader of the House to address himself but to which he did not address himself.
The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that some Ministers should waive the extra £312 a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has suggested that they should not waive it.
It is curious to note that in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury on 22nd July, the Leader of the House said something rather different. He said:
It might be helpful if I explain that the Order is drafted as it is merely because the Act can only be amended in respect of a whole category of Ministers. Under Section 4(2) of the Act, however, 'the amount specified … shall be taken to be the maximum amount … and accordingly … the salary … may be of a less amount than that so specified'.
That passage included a lot of dots, indicating that words were missing. I am not an exceptionally suspicious person, but I looked up the Act to find out which words were missing. That was very significant indeed. No doubt that was why the Leader of the House added those little dots because what Section 4(2) said was:
The amount specified in this Act as being the amount of any salary payable thereunder out of money provided by Parliament shall be taken to be the maximum amount so payable,"—
it is the word "payable", that key word, which he left out of the letter to my hon. Friend—
and accordingly, notwithstanding the provisions of this Act as to any such amount, the salary so payable in any year in respect of any office may be of a less amount than that so specified.
What the right hon. Gentleman is sheltering under is the fact that junior Ministers can say "No, we shall not raise our salaries. We do not want it".
What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that the Government, under Section 4(2), can refrain from paying them the increase. What he is saying, in other words, is that it has been done by statute and that he is imposing on the junior Ministers a statutory incomes policy.
There is no question of the junior Ministers having any option to take it or leave it. It is a curious thing, and it is


something which should be referred to on this occasion, that here we have, for the first time, the Leader of the House coming forward with a fully-fledged and un adulterated statutory income policy.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Junior Minister and Other Salaries Order 1976,a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY AND OTHER PENSIONS AND SALARIES BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

ADJUSTMENT OF MEMBERS' PENSIONABLE SALARY

'Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, salaries of Members of Parliament should immediately be increased by 6 per cent. from £5,750 per annum to £6,095 per annum, being the maximum increase allowed under the present wage and salary guidelines and should be increased in stages as possible within any future wage and salary guidelines up to a maximum of £8,000, being the amount recommended by the Top Salary Review Body, and that these actual salaries as paid at any one time should be the Member's pensionable salary'.—[Mr. Rathbone.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 3, in Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out from 'or' to end of line 5 on page 2 and insert:
'whatever salary rate may have been recommended by the Top Salary Review Body for pension purposes'.

Mr. Rathbone: May I by way of introduction say that up until this morning we understood that this would be the first business on the Order Paper. Most particularly, I want to say that because my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), who is a great expert on these matters, had to leave earlier in order to have a meeting with the Minister. Hon. Members who have taken an interest in these affairs will know that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in this matter and has moved amendments in Second Reading and also in Committee. The same goes for some of my other hon. Friends who have had to leave because they had prior commitments outside the House.
A word of explanation about the aim of the new clause is particularly necessary in this instance since the gentlemen in the Press Gallery, when the amendments were originally put down, went

out of their way to misinterpret them. I would like to make it clear that neither I, nor any of my hon. Friends who are supporting me in respect of the new clause or amendement, have been demanding salary increases for members of Parliament. Indeed, I and others voted against the increases suggested by the Government and passed a year ago, not because the increases were not deserved but because of the timing—cheek by jowl with the Government's announcement in respect of the battle against inflation and the £6 limit.
That is not to say that we do not feel the Government should not have acted earlier when they first received the Boyle Commission Report. If they had done so I believe they could have put up Members' salaries to the full amount recommended by the Boyle Report. Hopefully the Government are now wiser after the fact, but we are very much poorer.
As it is, I fear that they made a thorough botch of the whole thing by the improper timing and conclusion then, and they are now compounding it by improper timing now. It is a peculiar coincidence that we meet to discuss this question again, a year and a day after the last time we discussed it, and again within the shortest possible period of time after the announcement of Government measures to reduce inflation one way or another.
The reason for the new clause is that I and my colleagues believe that Members of Parliament should not receive unique and special pension treatment which is now sought by the Government in the Bill allowing, as it does, our pensions, like no one else's in the country, to be based on a salary level far above the salary we are actually being paid. The new clause and amendment seek to correct this.
Sadly, the Government have refused to change the Bill or amend this self-serving legislation, either at Second Reading or in Committee. We are seeking, once again, to persuade the Government to change it now.
I should further explain, for the elucidation of gentlemen in the Press Gallery, that it was not procedurally open to us to recommend that our present salary base be used for pension purposes because that would have been


considered to be a wrecking amendment. Even before the Government issued their own proposed increase in Members' salaries, the new clause was put down in this form. Perhaps this point is made easier to accept by the carrying of the motion earlier today.
The new clause recommends to the House that the pensions of Members of Parliament should be based on the salary that hon. Members will be receiving as from 13th June. I believe I am right in thinking that after carrying the motion earlier this afternoon no further action needs to be taken and that it can be regarded as a fait accompli. That means that the new clause is very pertinent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), with his quick eye, noticed that there was an arithmetical slip in the new clause, and he has put down amendments to it. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that if the new clause is carried you will be able to use your discretion, even though these are new amendments and starred, so that they may be incorporated. I would be very pleased to have them accepted as part of the new clause.
With regard to pensions for Members, we face a very different situation from that of someone who voluntarily forgos part of his salary but will receive his full pension entitlement at the time he retires. Certainly, in industry it is left to individual choice, in stark contrast to this piece of legislation which is Government dictation.
We are not in this House in receipt of a salary of £8,000, however much it is deserved and however strongly it was recommended by Lord Boyle in his Report. Therefore, that amount of £8,000 does not exist as a base for our pension arrangements. The fact that the Report recommends that as a salary base has no effect at all on the principle underlying my argument.
It must be the case in today's circumstances of high taxation that many men and women will be wondering whether they should dare to bend or break the untaxed limit which may be put aside to provide an adequate pension. With taxes as high as they are and with inflation continuing to run at an extremely worrying level, it is horrifying to think

that people's minds are becoming concentrated on how to get round the rules.
It would be sad if ever the honesty inherent in the people of the country became bent, as sometimes happens in other countries. As Members of Parliament we need not have any such concern. Instead of breaking the rules we can change the laws on our behalf so that we, and only we, can calculate our pensions on a non-existent notional salary which is 60 per cent. higher than the real salary.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about misrepresentation in the Press. I also agree with him that the question of salaries has been brought up later than it should have been. School teachers and other professional people received increases in April. Our increases have been brought up for consideration two months later. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we have given over £1½ million to the taxpayer by not taking the salary recommended by Lord Boyle?

Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman is turning the whole argument on its head. It is easy to look angelic by agreeing to take only half of a large amount that is promised, and it is nonsense to suggest that we are looked upon as good boys by the nation because of the action we took last year. It is entirely because the Government botched up the timing that we got into this difficulty. It was because of the railway men's strike that consideration was not given to the Boyle Report when it was received.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said, it is odd that we should be debating the Bill, when the Leader of the House told us recently that he is sitting uncomfortably upon the next report from Lord Boyle. The Leader of the House said:
I should also inform the House that the Prime Minister has received the second part of the Review Body's Report dealing with ministerial salaries, Members' pensions and some minor matters affecting Members' allowances and facilities.… It is being printed and will be presented to the House as soon as possible".
Yet here we are this afternoon passing a special Bill to give us special rights which will, presumably, be overtaken by the next Boyle Report.

Mr. Roger Sims: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that the House should know of the existence of the new Boyle Report but not have access to it when it is so relevant to the debate? Is not that yet another example of the Government's inability to organise their business?

Mr. Rathbone: I accept completely what my hon. Friend says. It is in sad contrast to the Lord President's advocacy of the parliamentary spirit and his defence of Parliament. On the same occasion, the Lord President said:
in my opinion it would be shabby if the Government were to apply a different rule to Ministers from that which they seek to apply to the rest of the nation".
That applies to our previous debate. The Leader of the House went on to say:
We are seeking to apply the same rules in this House as we seek to apply to people throughout the country. I only wish that everybody else would do the same."—[Official Report, 12th July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 33–38]
I only wish that the Lord President would do the same, but that is exactly what he is not doing by the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
In comparing the self-serving pension scheme proposed in the Bill with the way in which the Government's pay policy applies to the rest of the country, it will be seen that the Government's pay policy inhibits the ability of companies to provide properly for their staff. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the maximum benefits that can be provided in a new occupational scheme are set as the minimum needed for contracting-out of the national scheme. By any established standards, these benefits cannot be classified as even moderately good.
The Government are proposing for us a scheme which is uniquely better than any scheme available to anyone else on two scores. First, it is based on the higher notional salary, a basis which is not available to other people through our tax laws. Secondly, it is index-linked against future ravages of inflation, a system that is not affordable under any normal commercial scheme.
The Bill is drawn so that we can be relieved by our own legislation and administrative action from one more of the financial restrictions which weigh so heavily on everyone else. One year and

one day ago the Government broke the £6 pay limit in the week of its introduction and found a legal way of doing so. As always, it is easier for the Government because they do not have to break the laws; they can change them. By that action the Government were flying in the face of what they had said. They said that there should be no special cases, no exceptions. The former Prime Minister said that there was to be no jumping the queue before 1st August. That attitude is comparable to the Government weasel telling people to "Do as I say, not as I do".
The most worrying aspect of the Bill is that politicians will be encouraged to see themselves as a different race from other citizens. That danger was illustrated by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) who said that he and other Members of Parliament were looked upon by his constituents as rather special people. If we are not careful—and if we pass the Bill unamended we are not being careful—that feeling will be reciprocated by all citizens. That is precisely the situation that exists in Russia and other countries which are dominated by a political dictatorship, whether of the Right or the Left.
The amendments are designed to reverse such a corrosive trend and to rebuild a small bridge between Parliament and people.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) for the reasonable manner in which he presented his case. I accept his explanation for the absence of his parliamentary colleagues.
There are three features of the new clause on which the House has legitimate reservations. The first is that events have overtaken the figures referred to in the clause. Not only have events overtaken those figures, but our procedings earlier today have given legislative effect to the House's view of Government policy in that regard.
The second feature about which I believe the House has reservations is the indeterminate phrase in the clause—"in stages". It is true that the clause goes on to say
within any future wage and salary guidelines",


but the phrase "in stages" is indeterminate and the country has a right to know what it means.
The third reservation that I and so many of my colleagues have about the clause is that in a somewhat modified form it rehearses yet again the argument we had on Second Reading and in Committee about the propriety of basing a Member's pension on a notional salary of £8,000. It is regrettable that in the course of this continuing debate it has been implied that Members are putting themselves in a somewhat privileged position. The hon. Member for Lewes made much the same point. He said that Members were in danger of establishing themselves as a different race, that they were creating themselves as a special category by accepting the idea of establishing a pension rate for Members on a notional salary of £8,000.
I remind the House of the circumstances in which the salary of £8,000 was determined by the Boyle Committee. That is a completely independent body on which Members are not represented. It recommended that the rate for the job as Member of Parliament was £8,000 a year. It was because Members had regard to the economic difficulties facing the nation that they were prepared, and indicated their preparedness, to forgo £2,250 of that £8,000. What other section of the community—what other professional group—has forgone virtually 28 per cent. of a recommended salary increase emanating from a distinguished and completely independent review body?
It has been said that we are establishing a precedent. We are not establishing a precedent. Hon. Members will recall that the Boyle Committee examined and established new salary scales for the higher echelons of the Civil Service as from January 1975. The Government decided that those increases should be introduced by stages but said "If we are asking civil servants at these salary levels to forgo the increases recommended by an independent body, we should not ask them to forgo the pension entitlement attaching thereto."

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Surely the Minister's analogy is fundamentally imperfect. Pensions in the Civil

Service are not contributory pensions; they are non-contributory pensions. Therefore, all the Government are doing is saying "When the time comes eventually for you to retire, we shall pay you a higher pension than is proportionate to the present salary that we are agreeing to pay you now." It is different altogether to say in respect of contributory schemes "We shall notionally now credit you with the salary that is not being paid now." The Minister cannot rely on that analogy.

Mr. Morris: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to put whatever construction he wishes on the point I have made. Civil Service pensions are non-contributory only to the extent that no contribution is made by the individual civil servant, but the individual civil servant forgoes part of his salary on the basis of the fair comparisons exercise which the Pay Research Unit undertakes. So it is not accurate to argue that Civil Service pensions are non-contributory. They may be non-contributory in one sense, but in another sense civil servants, irrespective of the grade, forgo part of their salary for pension purposes.
If the right hon. Gentleman takes exception to the analogy that I sought to draw with civil servants whose pensions are calculated on a notional basis, perhaps he will consider what happens to others. The pensions of consultants in the National Health Service are calculated on a notional basis, as are the pensions of individuals in the Services. The suggestion that Members' pensions should be determined on a notional basis in no way creates a precedent.

Mr. Rathbone: Am I not right in thinking that that is a quite different use of the word "notional"? It is a best estimate of what the total remuneration will be as the base for pension. This is a notional basis which is purely up in the sky.

Mr. Morris: I do not accept that construction of the phrase "best estimate".
The other major point referred to by the hon. Gentleman was that in some ways Members of Parliament were being grasping and greedy in establishing £8,000 as the notional basis for their pensions. I noted earlier in the day that the Leader of the House referred to the


historical fact that Members of Parliament had been paid salaries for only a matter of 200 years. He was talking about a bicentenary, the fact that it was the 200th anniversary of the gentleman to whom he referred.

Mr. Powell: It is not the bicentenary of Members' salaries. This year is the 70th anniversary of Members' salaries. It is the bicentenary of an early proposal that Members of Parliament should be paid something, which lapsed in the seventeenth century.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful for the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman has placed upon the comment made by the Leader of the House.
I want to establish the point that pensions for Members of Parliament have been in existence for only a little over 11 years. That is reality. Those who represent Members as being grasping and greedy and as being over-generously provided for overlook the fact that the maximum pension entitlement that any Member can receive currently, irrespective of how long he has served his constituents in the House, is a little over 21 years. That is the maximum pension, no matter what service he may have. That is the extent of the over-generous provision of Members' pensions.
It is certainly not over-generous. Anyone who talks to a widow who is obliged to exist on a Member's widow's pension will find that she does not consider that she is over-generously provided for. The hon. Gentleman referred to establishing a principle for Members of Parliament and for those in the private sector. I invite him to consider some of the rather generous provisions made under the "top hat" pension arrangements in the private sector by which certain executives, directors and managers can attract a two-thirds pension on a mere 10 years' service.

Division No. 276.]
AYES
[5.05 p.m.



Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)




Moate, Roger




Sims, Roger




Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)




TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Tim Rathbone and




Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith

It behoves hon. Members to consider that situation before singling out Members of Parliament for criticism.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones: The House ought to pay attention to the Minister's observation about widows. If this House has any compassion at all, we should remember that there are three widows whose husbands paid contributions into the fund and who are still awaiting the benefits to which they are legally entitled. Will hon. Members keep that fact in mind?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful for the intervention of my hon. and good Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Rathbone: I should like to refer to the Minister's observation before he gave way to the hon. Member. The Minister was insinuating that no homework had been done. He insinuated that I had said that hon. Members were greedy and grasping. In fact I have done my homework and at no time did I insinuate that Members were greedy and grasping. I said that if Members did not accept this new clause, they would be self-serving.

Mr. Morris: I withdraw my imputation that the hon. Member had not done his homework. I withdraw it unreservedly, and if I have been discourteous to him, I apologise for my comments.
What phrase did the hon. Gentleman use? He said that Members of Parliament did not need to feel any concern about their pay and pensions. I believe that Members of Parliament do feel concern. If we did not have concern for our pay and pension levels, we should not be in the present situation.
I hope I have said sufficient to persuade the House to reject the clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 4, Noes 76.

NOES


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Boardman, H.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Price, William (Rugby)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Huckfield. Les
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Skinner, Dennis


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Judd, Frank
Snape, Peter


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kelley, Richard
Stallard, A. W.


Cryer, Bob
Kerr, Russell
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kilfedder, James
Stoddart, David


Davidson, Arthur
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Leadbitter, Ted
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Dormand, J. D.
Lee, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dunn, James A.
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
MacKenzie, Gregor
Tomney, Frank


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


English, Michael
Madden, Max
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mahon, Simon
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ward, Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woof, Robert


Gilbert, Dr John
Moyle, Roland



Golding, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, John (Islington C)
Owen, Dr David
Mr. Alf Bates and


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Ted Graham.


Harper, Joseph
Pendry, Tom

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

MEMBER'S PENSIONABLE SALARY

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.

No. 2, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'to' to 'means' in line 12 and insert
'a resolution of the House of Commons relating to the remuneration of Members'.

No. 4, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'higher rate' and insert
'rate higher than one or more other rates specified in the resolution'.

No. 5, in page 2, line 1, after 'office' insert
'or in receipt of a pension as former holders of an office'.

No. 6, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
'(7) Any reference in this Part of this Act to a resolution of the House of Commons relating to the remuneration of Members shall be construed, where there are two or more such resolutions for the time being in force, as a reference to those resolutions taken together'.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 17, leave out 'be deemed to have'.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Amendment No. 8, in page 2, leave out line 18 and insert
'when the state pension for a single person is one-half of average male earnings and that

for a married couple two-thirds that of average male earnings'.

Mr. Cryer: This measure involves retrospective legislation under subsection (4), and Amendment No. 7 would leave out the date. With Amendment No. 8, the effect would be to bring the Bill into operation only when State pensions were improved to a substantial level.
I have no objection to retrospective legislation when necessary, as it sometimes is. However, I must point out that here also there are double standards. There was an occasion, for example, when the Opposition danced with fury against a Bill having retrospective effect to relieve Clay Cross councillors of their disability to exercise civic rights. Much was made at that time of the effect of retrospective legislation. I am a little concerned that the present Bill is to be passed on the same sort of retrospective basis.
My second amendment, as I say, would bring the Bill into operation when there had been a substantial improvement in the State pension, that is to say—
when the state pension for a single person is one-half of average male earnings and that for a married couple two-thirds that of average male earnings.
In May this year, in manufacturing industry average earnings for manual workers were £64·85 per week, and for all industries covered the earnings were £64·70. My sources are the Department of Employment Gazette and the Department's Press notices. The current flat-rate retirement pension for a single person is £13·30, which as a proportion of average


manual male earnings is 20.6 per cent., and for a married couple it is £21·20, which is 32·8 per cent.
5.15 p.m.
If the Bill is to come into operation so as to provide a pension based on a notional salary of £8,000 per annum, it would be far more egalitarian—we are the party of greater equality—if it were linked to an improvement of the ordinary State flat-rate retirement pension. We want to see the flat-rate retirement pension improved, and it would, as it were, be a parliamentary production bonus if we brought the economy to such a state that we could improve pensions and thereby our own position. It seems to me entirely reasonable and right that it should be done on that basis. I do not take the view that to pass legislation which gives Labour Members of Parliament an £8,000 basis for pension is a particularly useful way to work—I said so on Second Reading, and I still take that view—because I do not believe that we should perpetuate a society which is already far too élitist and far too heavily oriented towards an élite structure.
There is a fundamental difference between our view on these Benches and the view held by the Opposition. We are seeking a fairer, better and more just society, while Opposition Members, who have from time to time proposed amendments and have opposed the Bill, take their stand from a position of luxury in that many have large private incomes from outside sources. We do not take their view. We believe that the Labour Government and Labour Members of Parliament are the leaders in a movement towards a more egalitarian society, and

Division No.277.]
AYES
[5.20 p.m.



Latham, Arthur (Paddington)




Paisley, Rev Ian




Skinner, Dennis




TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Max Madden and




Mr. Bob Cryer.



NOES


Bates, Alf
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Graham, Ted


Bishop, E. S.
Dormand, J. D.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Boardman, H.
Dunn, James A.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Eadie, Alex
Harper, Joseph


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
English, Michael
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Cohen, Stanley
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Huckfield, Les


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Gilbert, Dr John
Janner, Greville


Davidson, Arthur
Golding, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)

I do not consider that having pensions based on a notional salary of £8,000 per annum helps progress in that direction. Indeed, it may well put us out of touch with the rest of the trade union movement.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I recognise the anxiety felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) about the level of the State retirement pension, but I question whether his proposal offers the most effective way of achieving his objective. He suggests that the pensions of Members of Parliament should take account of the situation when the State pension for a single person is one-half of average male earnings and for a married couple two-thirds that of average male earnings.
As my hon. Friend recognises and accepts, as all my hon. Friends will, I am sure, Labour Governments have regularly and compassionately increased retirement pensions. On the last occasion, Members had to wait three and a half years before their salaries, and thereby their pensions, were reviewed. It would be a matter of concern to some hon. Members if the relationship between MPs' pensions and public service pensions generally were determined on the basis set out in the amendment. My hon. Friend accepted that the amendment, if implemented, would involve retrospective legislation, and that is the position.
For the reasons to which I have alluded, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment. Alternatively, I ask the House to reject it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 3, Noes 65.

Judd, Frank
Owen, Dr David
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Kerr, Russell
Pendry, Tom
Tomney, Frank


Kilfedder, James
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lee, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Maclennan, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Ward, Michael


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Marks, Kenneth
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)



Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stallard, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Moyle, Roland
Stoddart, David
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Strang, Gavin
Mr. Peter Snape.

Question accordingly negatived.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 18 at end insert—
'(5) This section shall not apply to those Members of Parliament who are in receipt of fees from directorships or parliamentary advisorships during the course of their holding office as a Member.'

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we may take Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 18 at end insert—
'(5) This section shall not apply to those Members of Parliament who are in receipt of any pecuniary interest which totals more than 10 per cent. of their parliamentary salary.'

Mr. Madden: The amendments draw attention to the part-time and full-time membership of the House and the humbug and hypocrisy which have entered into so much of our discussion today, not only on pensions but on Members' salaries. It is indicative of that humbug and hypocrisy that the hon. Members who signed the main amendment that we discussed just now have among them 19 directorships, six consultancies and a partnership in a solicitors' practice. The differences between part-time and full-time Members should be recognised not only in pensions but in other matters. That recognition is long overdue. The amendments would exclude full pension rights for those Members who enjoy significant outside financial interests.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I realise that behind the amendments is the thought that the job of a Member of Parliament should be a full-time occupation. I am conscious of the difficulties that arose in our earlier deliberations on that subject.
It is the normal policy to base pensions on the promulgated salary rate for the job. In many cases the other income which my hon. Friend says can be obtained will not be pensionable. There-

fore, I hope that my hon. Friend will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Madden: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.—[Mr. James A. Dunn.]

5.33 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not think that it would be proper to open what is, after all, for Northern Ireland the greater part of the annual Consolidated Fund Bill debate without recording a protest against the day and the time at which it is taking place. Of course, it is inevitable, especially with an overcrowded programme, that a considerable amount of Northern Ireland business in the form of Orders is dealt with in the later hours of the parliamentary day. Nevertheless, on this Order Paper we are dealing with no fewer than five items of what would be substantive legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom. At least two of the Orders are of major financial importance and provide major opportunities for hon. Members to ventilate criticism of the Executive.
I hope that the managers of Government business will take note of the fact that for this business to be dealt with late on a Friday will be seen in Northern Ireland as a sign of lack of interest in the affairs of the Province. I invite the Minister to give an undertaking, so far as he can give it, that there will be no repetition of this regrettable occasion for the handling of the annual Appropriation Order for Northern Ireland.
My second prefatory observation relates to the expression which I have already


used in describing this as the Consolidated Fund Bill for Northern Ireland. That, for a peculiar reason, is not quite accurate, because the Consolidated Fund procedures, as we would call them in the rest of the United Kingdom, are in the case of Northern Ireland divided into two parts. For although the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Government are totally responsible during this interim period for all aspects of government in Northern Ireland and all expenditure of public money, the provision for that public money, and consequently for the discharge of their responsibility and the lodging of criticism, is curiously divided into two parts. One part arises on the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Appropriation (No. 2) Act for the United Kingdom, whereas the remainder, which represents the subjects not reserved under the defunct constitution of 1973, is dealt with by the Order before the House.
It is for this reason that my hon. Friends and I were frustrated—and I think that that some of the Ministers shared our surprise—in our intention to raise tonight, amongst other subjects, the requirement for identity cards in the context of security in Northern Ireland. However, that is a subject to which we can and will return within the ambit of the United Kingdom Appropriation Act and on other occasions. I have just thrown out notice of that.
On previous Appropriation Orders it has been found mutually convenient for the debate to concentrate mainly—not exclusively, because this is the occasion on which every hon. Member can, if he wishes, ventilate a constituency matter—upon a few substantial topics of which the Government are given due notice. That is how we intend to proceed this evening.
The first of the topics which I wish to raise—and it is the major topic on which I shall concentrate—is that of rating in Northern Ireland. Rating is, I suppose, the supreme example of the well-known aphorism of Edmund Burke that
To tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men.
I suppose that, of all forms of taxation, rating is the most unpopular and the least understood. If it is little understood in Great Britain, one can hardly complain of the people of Northern Ireland being

totally nonplussed and therefore I think avoidably as well as unavoidably irritated by the rating regime under which they live. Because the Province is denied normal local government by the truncation of the upper tier of local government, which should have corresponded to the lower tier of the district councils, it is impossible for there to be the proper democratic link between election and taxation, between the election of responsible councillors and the imposition of the local tax, which is well understood and prevails in the rest of the Kingdom. Instead of that, it has been necessary in Northern Ireland to resort to a most extraordinary arrangement, whereby the greater part of the rate which is levied is so calculated as to produce a charge which on average, it is believed, is the sort of sum that householders would be paying in similar parts of Great Britain. It will be seen that there are a number of very difficult links in that chain of assimilation.
It is not surprising that if I stop one of my constituents in the street, either in Newry or in Banbridge, he will be unlikely to provide a reasoned explanation of the difference between the district rate and the regional rate. The regional rate is the responsibility, as are the services for which in part it pays, of Her Majesty's Government. The Government recognise that even in the absence of an upper tier of local government—and it will be recalled that this is one of the major matters on which my hon. Friend and I have insisted and will continue to insist—there should, if possible, be some more rational system of assessing the rateable contribution to the major services which are represented by the regional rate.
When the other Minister of State wrote to me on 1st December last on this difficult subject, he ended his letter by saying:
The inter-departmental committee is at present examining possible alternative methods of fixing the level of the regional rate.
That was eight months ago. Inter-departmental committees do not have the solemn slowness of Royal Commissions. If it were a Royal Commission, I should not be wasting the time of the House by referring to this matter at all but it is fair to invite the Minister to lift the interdepartmental veil a little and to let us know how the matter is proceeding.
We welcome the acceptance by the Government, by the fact that they have set up an interdepartmental committee, that it is not satisfactory to assess the major part of the rate in Northern Ireland in the way in which it is being dealt with at present. Although I am sure that the choice of the regions of Yorkshire and the North-East of England by comparison with the Province of Ulster is the closest choice that could be made, and although I know from figures given to me by the Minister of State that there is an attempt to correlate an average family income in those areas of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the fact remains—as with international comparisons—that the idea that one can take an average family in Yorkshire and, on the basis of that kind of statistics, say that it is the equivalent to an average family living in the Province, and then assume that one can arrange a rate poundage to ensure that an average family in Northern Ireland pays the same sum, does not take account of the realities of the levels of pay in Northern Ireland nor of the cost of living there, nor of the difference in the environment under which most people live in Northern Ireland in comparison with people living in Yorkshire.
Let us firmly place on the record the fact that the Government should be estopped from continuing this unsatisfactory method. We cannot and need not wait for a reform that will restore an upper tier of local government to Northern Ireland to bring about some measure of amelioration. The Government and the Departments have put on their thinking caps. We want to know that this work is going on apace.
We understand that the result of the imposition of the regional rate, calculated as I have described, over and above the average district rate struck by the respective district councils, is expected to produce an increase of 15 per cent. over the previous 12 months. If that is so, we must admit that the burden of rates will not be greater in the present financial year than in the last financial year. But into that sentence there is the insinuation of the wicked little word "average". There are few people or households that are average, but many fewer who are prepared to admit that they are average.
Perhaps I may be permitted a reminiscence—and I shall attempt to restrain my natural propensity to prolixity at this hour. I remember being on a course in the war in which a fellow officer received what was perhaps the most devastating report that it is possible to devise. It consisted of the one word "average". That is not a term which any of us likes to have applied to us or even to have it thought that it can possibly be applied to us. It is certainly not felt to apply to domestic ratepayers in a great many parts of Northern Ireland or to ratepayers who pay rates on non-domestic premises.
This brings me to the second horn of the rating bull, namely valuation—a matter also within the province of the Department and the ambit of the Estimates which are being caught up in the Order now before the House.
It is a long time since the previous valuation came into force. Even with the fairest and most accurate system of valuation, carried out by an archangel, the changes that are bound to occur over a generation cannot but result in the most tremendous shifts of rateable value and therefore of relative burdens between one ratepayer and another as a result of long intermissions between previous and present valuations. The fault for this particular intermission does not primarily rest with this House or with the Government. It is only in the latter years of that long epoch that any responsibility rests here. That does not mean that there is no responsibility for recognising the consequences of the long intervening period.
My hon. Friends and I are asking the Government, first, to give, so far as is humanly possible, an undertaking that there is to be no repetition of that experience; that the householders, and, above all the businesses, of Northern Ireland will never again be confronted with the violent variations in relative valuations which have resulted from this long period of intermission. The year 1981 is the proper statutory year for the next valuation to come into effect. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister of State in his reply this evening the assurance that the work of valuation for the next period is already being envisaged and that the Government by their actions will show that they have no intention of allowing


more than a quinquennial period to elapse in future.
Of course, this is a subject on which all Administrations have been delinquent. It is so easy for Governments—and they get plenty of support from those behind them—to duck the unpopularity of the apparent increase in rates which results from a revaluation, especially after a long period of inflation. But it is a temptation which Governments ought to resist because the result is not in any way to relieve the public of the rates. It is simply to maximise unfairness between ratepayers. The essence of a rating system ought to be fairness. After all, it is a method of distribution.
So the second thing we ask for is an assurance that it is the Government's intention, for which the administrative steps are being taken or are envisaged, that the next revaluation shall take place at the end of this quinquenium. But that will not help in the present.
I want to draw attention next to the severe variations which have taken place as between domestic and non-domestic rateable properties as a result of the new valuation list. In some parts of Northern Ireland this effect has been exaggerated. Certainly in some areas it is severe. Here I know that I shall carry with me particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), for he has the unenviable distinction of representing the area in which there was the largest of all shifts between domestic and non-domestic properties. There was a shift of no less than 10 per cent. in Londonderry, although in other parts of the Province, notably Banbridge and other places in my constituency, the shift was as high as 7 per cent.
The Government were at fault. They should have realised from the rating lists that there was this unintended transfer of burden on to businesses in Northern Ireland from ratepayers generally and that the transfer was not general throughout the Province. In the Province as a whole it averaged 3 per cent. and I would not say that that was an unreasonable alteration of the relationship. In certain places, however, it ran as high as 7 per cent. and 10 per cent.
The Government should have foreseen that event and taken appropriate steps to step-off, to graduate, the impact that

it would have on commercial businesses. I do not believe that that would necessarily have been too complicated if, foreseeing this effect, they had decided, let us say over two or three years, to introduce the new shift which has taken place in those areas. What we are dealing with is a disturbance of the intended relationship, the relationship which the Legislature has intended, of the burden of rates between commercial and non-commercial properties.
That brings me to the violent fluctuations which have affected individual properties. All hon. Members will have had brought to them the most hair-raising examples of the increase—not in valuation, of course, although in such cases the increase in valuation was astronomical —in actual rates demanded from comparatively small businesses. There is only one reply which so far as I know a Member of Parliament can properly give in such circumstances. After having done his best, which will not make him very popular, to explain how rating works, he has to say "Maybe this is just in your case, having regard to the let-table value of your premises compared with what they were when the old list was made up". Then he has to say "My dear friend, what you must do is appeal. You must take professional advice and appeal."
I do not believe that the Government, knowing that the new valuation list would be attended with this tremendous upset —and it has rendered some business people almost suicidal—did sufficient to publicise, I even dare to say invite, resort to appeal by ratepayers who felt that they were unfairly dealt with under the new valuation list. This does not mean that hundreds of thousands of individual appeals would necessarily result. Rating appeals proceed by way of test cases. In this respect I believe that the chambers of trade and commerce could be and ought to be helpful. It is they who, from the side of the trader, are in a position to organise the bringing of appeals in what I might call typical cases, representing what appear to be unduly high valuations. This does not in any way prejudice the right of the individual ratepayer at any time to appeal against his personal valuation.
A great deal more could have been done to encourage and facilitate the


bringing of typical appeals which would either produce a redressing of the disbalance or else would at any rate bring reassurance to commercial ratepayers that their anxieties have been understood and that there were genuine reasons for the tremendous variation in their personal rate burden.
In that context there is one aspect which I want to stress because it relates again to the long intermission of time between the old and the new valuation. I refer to the fact that where rateable valuation has in the past been unduly low, upon the whole rents may have been unduly high. Since, from the point of view of a tenant, rates and rent are parts of one thing, it follows that if rating is persistently low, the slack will be taken up by the commercial rent. It is probably true that these rents which in the past took account of, were based upon, an unduly low rate, have been carried forward as a standard of valuation into the new lists. This is exactly the sort of thing which the timely bringing of test cases ought to be able to determine and eliminate.
I ask the Minister whether he will do everything he can in the Province to make it understood by ratepayers that they have these rights of appeal and to encourage them to exercise those rights. I ask him to encourage the bringing of selected test cases which will highlight and, if possible, deal with, the classifiable special causes of discontent over the effects of the new valuation list.
I have one final point on rating. Under an Order which we made not long ago, sports halls in the Province qualified for a considerable rate relief as sports halls. That was made under the terms of the Recreational Hereditaments Order. The point I put to the Government is that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland the definition of sports halls is for this purpose unreasonably restrictive and that village halls and what are called "band" halls in different parts of the Province fulfil exactly the same social function which has been thought to justify the attraction of the large derating in the Recreational Hereditaments Order.
There is—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will confirm this—no sectarian flavour in this

plea. Indeed, the strongest argument which has been put to me in favour of it, at any rate in my constituency, came from a district council on which his party has the majority. Anyone who knows Northern Ireland knows that there is no classification one side or the other of this type of characteristic institution and characteristic provision—very different from the sort of social provision in the typical village or small town on this side of the Irish Sea.
Therefore, I want to put a plea to the Government to envisage the extension of the recreational hereditaments derating so as to take account of the reality, which is that these other halls are performing just as valuable a social function. I am sure that my hon. Friends who will also will be reinforcing the points which I be speaking in the debate and others have made on the subject of rating.
Now I want to come more briefly to two other topics. One, which falls under the Vote of the Department of Commerce, is the question of the impediment to communications by air between the Province and the mainland. I really do not think that members of the Government sufficiently appreciate how vital and sensitive this matter of communications is nor the degree of frustration which is imposed upon those travelling for business or any other purpose between the mainland and the Province. I do not believe that they appreciate this because they are almost literally encapsulated. Unlike the rest of us, for reasons which may be good or bad, Ministers travel by space capsule between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Not for them the frustrations which their colleagues in this House experience; not for them to experience the sight of their constituents and other citizens of Northern Ireland being herded and delayed; not for them therefore to be able to appreciate, as we can from personal experience, the sheer damage which is being done economically, day in and day out, to Northern Ireland by these frustrations.
There must be many cases in which the manager of a business, considering the possibility of extending that business in Northern Ireland, or planning a branch of that business in Northern Ireland, or even of moving to Northern Ireland or setting up there, has his decision influenced against it by—and I regret to use


the word—the obstruction which he encounters simply in the attempt to spend a few hours in the Province, travelling there and back by air.
The reason why this matter is being raised particularly in the debate today is the severe and sudden addition to the frustration which is going to be made, which is already being made, by the new arrangements introduced around Alder-grove airport. This will be discussed at greater length by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux), in whose constituency the airport is situated, and by others. Let me briefly say that in that matter undertakings which were given to him and others have not been fulfilled, that intimations which were given have been defied, that the public have been left, despite the undertaking that they would be informed in advance, in the dark as to what was happening, and that altogether something bearing a reasonable approximation to a real military chaos has been created around Aldergrove airport.
The Government really must ensure that, whatever measures they consider necessary, and whatever was the cause for this sudden rearrangement in that area, they keep firmly in mind always how economically vital it is for the Province that those travelling to a time schedule between Northern Ireland and Great Britain are not subjected, if it can possibly be avoided, to large and unforeseeable delays and frustrations. It simply is not good enough that large queues of traffic, which may mean the loss not merely of flights but of connections abroad, are suddenly created, as they have been in the last few days around the one communications lifeline, for economic and managerial purposes, that Northern Ireland has with the outside world.
I add one further reflection on this topic. I must say that it seems to me that the Government suffer from a kind of hysteria on the subject of security in the context of air communications between the Province and Great Britain. I am only marginally enlarging the scope of this aspect of the debate when I refer —and some of this happened within the purview of Aldergrove Airport, which is covered by this appropriation Order—

to the sort of search to which travellers on the Belfast-London link alone are subjected, which does not apply, for example, to the London-Dublin link, still less, for example, to the London-Glasgow link. I ask what is the sort of thinking behind these extraordinary searches and harassments which go, for example, to the extent of obliging a passenger who thought that he would be able to read a hardback book on the voyage either to abandon the hope of doing so or else to tear the cover off. We are told "But the hard cover of a book can contain a sheet of plastic explosive cunningly inserted." If it can contain a sheet of plastic explosive between London and Belfast, so can it between London and Dublin—I need not perhaps in this week underline that statement—so can it between London and Glasgow, and so can it between London and many continental destinations.
I am sure that travellers and business people coming to this country and used to the level of security precautions which prevail on the Continent are shocked and rather deterred by the kind of—I repeat the word—harassment to which they are subjected in embarking to and from Northern Ireland. What is the thinking behind it? Is it hijacking? Some of the rumours tell us that it is hijacking, that the reason one cannot have an umbrella is that it may be a hijack weapon. Do the Government really think that those who are going to hijack an aircraft are going to pick on the Belfast-London flight? Anyone who is going to hijack an aircraft will hijack one in which he can make a much longer journey than these aircraft are prepared and fuelled for. Is it the theory that terrorism will go to the extent—very rare but perhaps occasionally exemplified a few years ago, but which has passed out of the headlines currently—of destroying an aircraft, with crew and passengers, in the air? Is there any reason why a terrorist should strike only on an aircraft between London and Belfast? Why not elsewhere? Why not between London and Birmingham or London and Dublin?

Mr. Gerard Fitt: We might be on the plane.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Belfast, West attaches excessive importance


to this little band gathered together to hold the evening service in the Chamber tonight. But I do not think he is seriously challenging my proposition.
I simply do not believe that there can be any rational justification for the extraordinary differentiation between the security precautions taken on embarkation from London to Belfast, or for London from Belfast, or for Great Britain from Belfast, and those which are rightly and properly taken on other journeys.
The Government must understand the degree of strangulation to which they are subjecting the Province. I am sure that they are genuine when they say there is no question of their pulling out of Northern Ireland, either militarily or economically. But without intending that it should do so, security is slowly but inexorably tightening and strangling the most essential links between Northern Ireland and the mainland.
In raising my final subject I assure the Minister of State that I am not dealing with this matter in an ungenerous or carping manner. I am on his side, but all Departments from time to time need smartening up. Like military units, Government Departments cannot carry on at the same level of efficiency without periodical smartening up, and smartening up is required in various Departments of the Government of Northern Ireland.
The first point I raise in this respect is the subject of Parliamentary Questions. I put down some Questions to the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and Scotland asking them how many Questions tabled as "W" in the first four months of this year had been deferred. The comparison is startling. Scotland had 149 Questions marked "W" and in no case was the substantive answer deferred. Northern Ireland had 129 Questions marked "W" and in 69 cases —more than half—the substantive answer was deferred.
I do not believe that my hon. Friends and I have been asking more unreasonable questions than Scottish Members. That would be entirely out of keeping with the respective characters of Ulstermen and Scots. Nor do I believe that it could be seriously argued that the separation between Stormont and Whitehall is administratively more difficult than

the separation between St. Andrew's House and Whitehall. If there is a difficulty it should be remedied. This inability to obtain answers to Parliamentary Questions shows a deficiency which needs to be rectified. The contrast between Northern Ireland and Scotland is not justified.
Secondly, there is the question of handling hon. Members' correspondence. I preface my remarks with my own personal recognition of the care, courtesy and attention which the Minister and his colleagues have shown in dealing with matters I have put before them. I realise that the absence of proper local government in Northern Ireland means that we are putting through the government machine in Northern Ireland subjects which should not be put through it. Nevertheless taking account of that, the lapses of time which have occurred between the raising of matters and their being answered are excessive.
I raised a case with the other Minister of State on 14th April and it was acknowledged on 26th April. I sent a chaser on 15th July but still I have received no substantive reply, nor even an interim reply other than an acknowledgement. I raised another matter with the same Minister on 25th February which was acknowledged on 9th March. I sent a chaser on the 15th July but I have still heard nothing since the first acknowledgement on 9th March. The Minister of State and I discussed a subject on 12th April in some detail. I sent him a chaser for this on 5th July having heard nothing further. I received an acknowledgement on 14th July, but it is now 23rd July and I have heard no more.
I simply say through, rather than to, the Minister of State that this is not up to the standard of a United Kingdom Government Department, and Northern Ireland is a United Kingdom Government Department. There is no reason why we should be satisfied, or, indeed, the Government should be satisfied, with a lesser level of efficiency. I hope that the Minister of State will give an undertaking that there will be a thorough survey and tightening up of procedures in his Department so that matters put forward by hon. Members, who are the only elected representatives above district councillors of the people of Northern Ireland, are dealt with as efficiently as Scottish matters.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I find myself in substantial agreement with what has been said by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in particular with his eloquent appeal on behalf of the ratepayers of Northern Ireland. They are suffering tremendously because of the recent high valuation imposed on them. We have had deputations from the people so affected and afflicted, and I fully support the right hon. Member's appeal to the Minister to try to find some way of helping these people in their present economic plight.
I am being realistic in admitting that I cannot see this Government, in view of recent developments, giving any support to the Northern Ireland ratepayers that would not be given to other ratepayers in the United Kingdom. However, I hope that the Minister does not assume from my remarks that we are not expecting help, because indeed we are.
There was great despair in Northern Ireland this morning, particularly among the unemployed, at the Chancellor's announcement yesterday. There are now nearly 70,000 people unemployed in Northern Ireland and with the exception of 1934 and 1935—the hungry thirties—that is the highest figure I can remember. I remember the great distress in those years when so many people were searching unsuccessfully for a job.
I suppose that Ministers will tell us that at that time there were not the social security benefits now available to the unemployed. We had to depend then on what was known as outdoor relief, but whatever the amount of benefit paid to the unemployed in Northern Ireland, it is no substitute for a job.
All the problems of the unemployed in Northern Ireland are related. The right hon. Member for Down, South said that the increase in rates had driven some people almost to suicide. That might be an exaggeration, but the increase has certainly caused some small businesses to close and to pay off employees. Only a month ago we were told in the House that there were 51,000 unemployed in the Province, so that within a space of four weeks more than 10,000 have been added to that completely unacceptable figure.
The atmosphere in which we are forced to debate these Orders is not conducive

to instilling confidence into an already demoralised society. I know that other parts of the United Kingdom have their problems, but in some ways I believe that Members from constituencies there have the support of their colleagues when they ask for special assistance for their areas. I get the feeling—perhaps it is unwarranted—that when Northern Ireland Members make their appeals, Ministers think "Here are the whiners from Northern Ireland again. They are always looking for special help to provide jobs and for extra money for health and social services". If that is what they think, they must understand that it is the duty of elected Members to put before Ministers the problems we see every day in our constituencies.
The present constitution of the House of Commons relieves me to some extent of the burden of being in Belfast every day and of seeing the problems there. Circumstances demand that I am normally here trying to keep in office the Government whom I support and will continue to support. I hope, however, that the Government will realise that when I describe the problems in Northern Ireland, I expect them to do what they can to alleviate the distress there.
There is provision in the Ministry of Commerce estimates for land, buildings and selective assistance to industry and shipbuilding, including the repayment to the Consolidated Fund of certain issues. Over the past two months a considerable number of private small industries have been driven to the wall. In specific instances Northern Ireland Members have made representations to the Treasury in the hope of securing financial assistance to keep these industries in being. But firms that asked me to act as an intermediary now no longer exist.
That is not because of inaction by Northern Ireland Ministers. The Treasury bears a great responsibility for not acceding to requests of Northern Ireland Members on these matters. I should have thought that the Government would have plans in hand to stop this drift. We have gone too far down this road and the trend must be stopped.
The Chancellor's announcement yesterday, however, can only mean a continuing crisis in the Province. The Secretary of State is in Northern Ireland


today and he will be well aware of the anxiety caused by that statement among the trade union movement and leaders of industry there. It is felt that Northern Ireland is being treated less humanely than other regions in the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State said in Northern Ireland this morning that he had not yet decided where the cuts will be made. Wherever they fall, they will cause more unemployment. In view of the special circumstances of the Province, I should have expected it to be treated more humanely by the Government, but I do not see any signs of that. The Minister today had an opportunity to make a comprehensive statement about the Government's intentions for the next few months. Our constituents feel that they do not have any great future. In those circumstances, the Minister should take his time and explain what our constituents want to know.
If housing is to be cut, it will mean that building workers are not needed. That will inflate the unemployment figure. If the roads problem is not alleviated, factories will close down, with an obvious influence on unemployment. Since the Ministry of Commerce has failed to attract new industrial investment to Northern Ireland, the Government should consider establishing State industries there.
I was very hopeful when in that direction the former Minister of State, now the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, opened a State undertaking in Northern Ireland. From the reports that I have received it seems to have been a tremendous success and the labour force has been very adaptable. I did not realise that we had such an adaptable labour force, but it has fallen in with what is required. The order books are full, and long may that continue.
This is one small industry. There must be other parts of industry in Northern Ireland where State assistance or supervision would go a long way to stabilise an economy flagging sadly every day. I realise that the doctrinaire approach of the Opposition would not allow them to provide State industry, but I do not believe that hon. Members on those Benches who have experience of conditions in Northern Ireland would voice outright

opposition if the Government attempted to take steps to cope with this problem.
Northern Ireland has not been in the forefront of the provision of homes for the homeless, but there are many houses in Belfast which have been blocked up because of the political troubles. I do not want to refer to particular areas in case doing so escalates tension there. The Government should do everything possible to have these homes re-opened if they are capable of being occupied. If yesterday's public expenditure cuts prevent the Government from building new houses in Northern Ireland, it is all the more necessary that every unit of accommodation which has been blocked up should be made available for the thousands who need homes.
I hope that in deciding where to apply the cuts the Secretary of State will not consider health and social services. Some time ago, I asked 29 Questions about health and social services in Northern Ireland and the problems facing the disabled and those unable to fend for themselves—the most defenceless section of the community. I received a reply saying that the Government were looking into these matters and would write to me later.
That means either, as the right hon. Member for Down, South suggested, inefficiency in the Department, or that before the imposition of direct rule the people in the Parliament of Northern Ireland were not aware of the extent of the problem and had taken no steps to find out. I am prepared to apportion the blame equally, but I think that the major part must rest with the former Stormont administration.
I am convinced that there are thousands severely handicapped, deaf, blind, or unable to fend for themselves who have had no voice raised on their behalf in the recent troubled years.
There are some Acts that I do not want to be applied to Northern Ireland because they have no relevance to our problems, but I regret that only one section of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act applies there. I should like every schedule, section, subsection and comma of it to apply to Northern Ireland. The chronically sick and handicapped in that part of the United Kingdom should be afforded the same protection and amenities as those in


England, Scotland and Wales. It is no good the Government saying that extending this legislation to Northern Ireland would destroy the effects of the public expenditure cuts. That argument is unacceptable to any section of the community in Northern Ireland.
In our crisis, we sometimes think that security is our greatest problem. I agree that we have suffered in many ways because of it, but the security situation cannot be blamed for all our present troubles. There has been neglect over too many years and in tackling bad housing, severe unemployment and the neglect of the sick and disabled, we should be contributing to the improvement of the security situation.
My plea to the Government is for them not to think that Northern Ireland has always had high unemployment and bad housing so that the cuts will soon be forgotten. They will not be forgotten. Whatever differences I have with other hon. Members from Northern Ireland, we shall all repeatedly be bringing problems to the attention of the Government. I hope that the Minister will tell us what action he proposes in the immediate future.
The people of Northern Ireland do not have the opportunity to think about the 1980s. The resolution made by everyone in Northern Ireland on 1st January each year is to be there at the same time the next year. We want to hear from the Minister what steps he proposes to take to alleviate the immediate problems.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The speeches we have heard in this debate show clearly that direct rule by this Government is a failure. I have long argued that the sooner we get a devolved Government restored to Northern Ireland the better. I think that this Government shows to the people of Northern Ireland that we had better get it before long otherwise the Province will be in a worse state than it is at present. I do not believe there has been any colony or Province which has been ruled as badly as Northern Ireland is ruled at the present time. Given the harsh effects of unemployment—61,000 at the present time including 9,000 school leavers—it is a sad state of affairs which, as the repre-

sentatives of the Ulster people, we should not accept.
Of course, emigration, at 14,000 a year from Northern Ireland, obscures the true economic state of the Province. At the same time, it shows the great weakness of the economy and its inability to provide jobs for skilled men and women. It is indeed quite extraordinary that builders should be out of work at a time when there is a great need for houses to be erected for those people who are homeless or badly housed.
There has been an inability to provide jobs not only for skilled workers but also for people who are professionally qualified coming out of our universities and polytechnics. Were it not for the great number of people who emigrated last year the total of unemployed would be 70,000 instead of 61,000. Must we export our young people from Northern Ireland in order to survive? Survival on such a condition is totally unacceptable unless we want a dying community, and no one in Northern Ireland wants that except the terrorists.
It is sad that Northern Ireland business is taken on a Friday evening at this hour. I must enter my protest against the way in which the Government are dealing with Northern Ireland and its affairs. No opportunity should be missed of transferring financial resources to the manufacturing, commercial and agricultural enterprises in the Province—those industries which can best provide prosperity in Northern Ireland and provide more and more work for the unemployed.
The total estimate for the programme for trade, industry and commerce for 1976–77 is £190·1 million. For last year —1975–76 including the supplementary estimate—the amount was £215·2 million. In other words, the estimate for this year is £25·1 million less than last year. Yet this is the very programme which is most likely to stimulate economic recovery in the Province and it is one which should provide the essential platform of basic industrial infrastructure necessary to place Ulster in the position in which it can take maximum advantage of the expected upturn in the economy next year.
The total estimate of £1,038 million is £10 million more than the final total estimate for 1975–76. However, if one


takes account of inflation, which has been running at 16 per cent. since April 1976, which, hopefully, will be 10 per cent. at the end of the financial year, the actual increase is less than 1½ per cent. That is a derisory amount when one considers the sad economic situation of the Province and the fact that so many people are unemployed.
The future big additions to the number of unemployed in Ulster will, of course, come along when the defence cuts have been fully implemented. Even a Government, owned factory such as Rolls-Royce and other Government factories prefer to close a branch factory in Northern Ireland, despite the background of terrorism and unemployment there, rather than a factory in a more affluent part of Great Britain. It is clear that if the Government do not keep those Government-owned factories open in Northern Ireland we must turn to the other industries in the Province.
In Northern Ireland we need a stable and effective counter to the influence and manipulations of the local economy by the multinational companies. One way might be to insist by statute that multinational companies must have worker participation, and Government representatives on managerial boards at local factory level. Harland and Wolff have shown how this might be done, and so has the work which has been put in by the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). This should be extended to the local manufacturing units of the big companies which establish branches in Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland Development Agency is to get over £10 million in 1976–77. How can it possibly do the job that it is meant to do on that kind of budget? The record of its predecessor—the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation —in promoting new manufacturing work was not particularly good. We must remember that over 1,000 jobs were lost in spite of the money which the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation put into new business in Northern Ireland. If the Northern Ireland Development Agency is to help the economy, it must itself establish manufacturing units. Whether it does so as the sole proprietors or in participation with private commercial interests is less important than that it

should act radically in a desperate situation which demands a fresh and venturesome approach.
There are parts of the United Kingdom —Northern Ireland is one of them—where the standards of London and the Midlands in respect of profitability of industry simply do not apply. The Northern Ireland Development Agency must have the same ability to invest resources, to transfer resources and to build and run factories as the big multinational companies. The agency was not created simply to feed such companies with additional money from the taxpayers' purse. As a vital service to the Province, the agency must be able to sustain a more modest level of profit because the high profit margins of the multinational companies are not necessarily the criteria which the agency should follow.
I would, therefore, urge the Government to make sure that everything is done to help industry in the Province by providing jobs for the unemployed. If this Government were not so far removed from the pain and agony of those who are without work they would be doing far more than they are doing at the present time or have done since they have taken over responsibility for Northern Ireland.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) referred to the cuts announced yesterday by the Chancellor. We on the Ulster Unionist Bench have always said that we would support such decisions in general because we believed that they were absolutely essential. We do not then make the mistake of demanding further expenditure in our own constituencies. I think the Minister of State will acknowledge that.
Perhaps I may help the Chancellor by suggesting one respect in which his right hon. and hon. Friends in Northern Ireland might effect a considerable saving. I tabled a Written Question some months ago about the estimated cost of the proposed motor road from Whitehouse to Rushpark in Newtownabbey. It is an extraordinary project involving the loop of a motorway out into the sea. It will be built on stilts about 20 feet high and loop back to the land. It can only be regarded as a most extravagant project.
Only today did I receive the answer to that Question. This one-and-a-half mile motor road will cost almost £3 million. I understand that the project has not yet gone out to contract, so we can safely assume that by the time the bills are paid the cost will be in excess of £3 million. Although most of the road is in my constituency, I would happily sacrifice it in the national interest and in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland if the £3 million were spent on something more sensible.
I fully support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said about the hardship and the financial difficulties caused to traders and others by the sudden imposition of a burden which they are unable to bear. My right hon. Friend has devoted a great deal of time and energy to research into and study of this problem and has been in constant touch with the Northern Ireland Office. I trust that the Minister of State will pay heed to what my right hon. Friend said and act on the sensible and wise advice which, as always, he has given.
The security of Aldergrove Airport comes under Class IV of the Order. It cannot be considered in isolation from security in Northern Ireland as a whole. However, I shall confine myself to aspects of Northern Ireland security which have some bearing on security in and around the airport and the effect of the precautions which have been set in train.
The most obvious of these is the contrast between the degree of security within the general area of the airport and the degree of security not just on average—if my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South will forgive me for using that unmentionable word—over the Province, but in danger areas. I remember making this point to the authorities when there was great anxiety about South Armagh, after paying a visit to that area with my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). I was told that it was easy to concentrate security in a small area like the airport but far more difficult to do so in South Armagh. But the problem is not so different. The area taken into the general perimeter of Aldergrove would amount

to a fair slice of the troublesome part of South Armagh.
In the area in which I live near the airport there are ludicrous arrangements for thoroughly searching people who return to the area, and cars are examined fore and aft. We had the extraordinary experience of going down to South Armagh, where people had been murdered the night before, and during the whole tour seeing only two Army vehicles. I shall not go back over the South Armagh situation, except to say that I welcome the limited improvement. We hope that there will be no 1et-up in the measures taken there.
In recent days I have been asked whether I am in favour of security. Of course I am in favour of security. We on this Bench have consistently demanded greater security throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. If people in Northern Ireland are exposed to great risks as they go about their everyday lives, what luxury is it for them to be protected, and perhaps smothered, by security precautions for the brief period during which they are in the locality of the airport?
It might be said that air travellers are nervous or might be deterred from making a journey if they felt that their security was not being looked after. I do not think that air travellers are nervous about the imaginary hazards they might encounter. I well remember the coolness and determination of my fellow passengers in an aircraft on which a bomb had been placed on a flight from Belfast to Heathrow three or four years ago. The aircraft made an emergency landing at Manchester Airport and the passengers disembarked in an unorthodox way, but they did not want to complete the journey by rail to London. They waited for another aircraft to take them to Heathrow. Nor on the journey back to Belfast did they want to go by steamer and rail. They immediately set about making arrangements allowing for the delay occasioned to their plans, and they were determined not to be put off even by that serious incident.
Travellers would happily accept, for example, the supposed risk of men being allowed to carry on board the aircraft a small briefcase or document case. Women


are permitted to carry handbags, often of a fair capacity. We are living in the age of non-discrimination, women's lib and so on, and my right hon. and hon. Friends might consider lodging a complaint before the Equal Opportunities Commission.
Business men flying between London and Belfast on a journey of five or six hours find it most frustrating when their papers are taken away and put into a plastic bag and they are unable to use them during the journey. They do not see their papers until they get to their destination, and even then there is a delay.
From what source does the pressure come? It comes from a small band of persons who are on the soil of Northern Ireland for approximately 60 minutes on each trip, that is to say, the airline pilots and crew. They claim that they have responsibility for the safety of the passengers and the aircraft, but I have already shown that the passengers are not wildly enthusiastic about more security measures.
The passengers are not greatly worried. Why do certain airline crews—not all—refuse to stay overnight in Northern Ireland? They refuse to share the risks which all the people of Northern Ireland endure, not just on one evening out of 14, but day after day, night after night.
What about the safety of the aircraft? About three weeks ago I was booked to come over on that disastrous aircraft known as Tri-Star. The aircraft broke down at Heathrow—a not unusual occurrence—and could not come to Alder-grove. We were told that there would be an hour's delay and that a Trident would be put on in substitution. When that hour was up and there was no sign of the Trident we were told that there would be another hour's delay because somebody at Heathrow had backed a tractor into the Trident and made a hole in the fuselage. So pilots have no need to worry about the safety of the aircraft and we need not be hypnotised about the safety aspect. All these things need to be kept in proportion.
We are entitled to suggest that there should be a fitting sense of proportion. Limited risks exist here, as they do everywhere but, as has been said already, if

a terrorist group is determined to hijack an aircraft—I do not want to put ideas into anyone's head—there are aircraft flying on other United Kingdom routes wide open to such attack and, not to put too fine a point on it, carrying passengers who, although they may not be quite as important as those referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, West, might have some value as hostages.
I want to deal briefly with some specific matters concerning Aldergrove. The first is the delay caused by the diversion. I understand that recently the motoring organisations reprimanded me for saying that there had been considerable traffic chaos and delay. The motoring organisations, presumably having joined the Establishment, as all such organisations usually do, said that the delay would amount to only 10 minutes. I imagine that that estimate was made by a man sitting in a comfortable office in the organisation's city office. It would have been an easy matter for him to discover the facts if he had taken the trouble to drive out to the scene and go through the motions, as some of the rest of us have been forced to do, because his estimate of 10 minutes takes no account of two factors. The first of those factors is the Army check posts, which may or may not be there; the second, is the traffic congestion.
The most serious aspect of this congestion is caused by the diversion through what the newspapers have in the past week come to call the Killead village route. In a Written Question about two months ago I asked the Secretary of State to restrict the size and weight of vehicles using this route, partly because of its very restricted width and very poor visibility and partly because of the danger then already being caused to pupils attending the primary school at Killead. Incidentally, it is a good Presbyterian school.
I think that my request got caught up in the sausage machine referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South. The answer has not yet appeared. The opposite to what I suggested has now been achieved because everythting has been diverted on to that unsafe road. There is the local traffic, which has no alternative. There is the north-bound traffic flowing from Newry, Banbridge Craigavon, Lisburn through to


Londonderry. There is also the huge volume of airport traffic.
The problem of that road link must be considered seriously. In the meantime I hope that the Minister will use his influence to see whether it is not possible to impose a speed limit, because it is in everyone's interests to ensure that, although traffic is kept moving, further danger is not caused to people using the road including the unfortunate local people.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South also mentioned certain undertakings which had not been honoured. Earlier in the week, when I raised the question of sand supplies from the sand quay at Loch Neagh, I was told that no difficulty would arise as only a small proportion of the lorries used that road. That road, which has now been closed, was reconstructed at enormous cost to provide access for the sand lorries conveying the loads of sand to built-up urban areas.
I have here a letter from the largest sand undertaking in Northern Ireland stating that the re-routing, and the extra mileage thereby involved, will cost it £60,000 in one year. That does not square with what I was told earlier in the year, namely, that it would be an insignificant element. It is no small item nowadays, especially as it will sooner or later be passed on to the customer.
Another category is the unfortunate farmers and those who work at the airport. If the delay is, as I have illustrated, of significance for air travellers approaching the airport, it is of far greater importance to the locals who live and work in the area. They have an additional problem to contend with. The mobile patrols make spot checks on the roads surrounding the airport. What happens, as I have experienced many times myself, is that one can be delayed for 20 minutes in such a spot check and then, as soon as one's turn comes up for checking, the road block is withdrawn and one can drive on. If one had unlawful intent, one would thus be enabled to proceed with one's intention
Another problem with which the locals have to contend is the increase from three to 11 miles caused by the detour. This is no small matter when such a journey is made by workers seven days a week.

In these days of high fuel costs, it should not be ignored.
It has been mentioned already that there was a lack of consultation. I cannot understand why this should have been so. One could have accepted it if there had been some sudden emergency and it had been necessary to take emergency action. However, some of us have known about these projected plans for exactly seven weeks.
Many Members of the general public living in the area of the airport have known about them for that length of time. Why could not they have been consulted at an earlier stage? It is wide of the fact to say that they were consulted. They were informed of what was to happen the day before and during that night—in the small hours of the morning —the engineers' lorries arrived with the material and proceeded to block the roads. As far as I know, up to this point nothing had been done to meet the wishes of those most affected.
Earlier in the week, when I pointed out that any attempt to interfere with the flow of traffic to and from the airport would have disastrous consequences and would result in a long queue of waiting traffic, I was assured that this would not be so. However, this undertaking has not been adhered to. On the first afternoon of the closures the traffic was completely jammed. Even north-bound traffic was being impeded. In fairness to the Government I must say that when I pointed this out another Minister went to the telephone and had the situation remedied. Clearly an undertaking had been given and something was understood at a certain level, but it had not been transmittted to those on the ground. We are very foolish and naive if we believe that this sort of thing will not happen again, and we shall need very firm assurances before our fears are removed.
Assurances were given that the internal search of cars and freight lorries going into the inner compound of the airport would not be allowed to impede traffic which had already passed through the outer checkpoint and would not block the entrance. Yesterday morning I went down to that point—of course, I did not go beyond the barrier; if I had, I might not have been allowed to come out—and observed that traffic was being


impeded by other traffic going into the inner section. Surely some means could be devised to make sure that traffic being searched does not hold up other traffic which has already been screened and which is carrying people who wish to join flights from the airport. This morning I had an urgent message from the Ulster Farmers Union asking for a meeting about this problem, and the local civic association made a similar request to me to arrange a meeting with the Minister responsible.
I support the pleas made by my right hon. Friend that a fresh look should be taken at this whole approach to security. There is the problem of security in villages and towns. The pattern varies very much from one area to another, and not only in danger areas. We get this problem in comparable towns where the situation is roughly the same, and yet one town centre is boxed off completely while another is open to traffic. We must make sure that there is a common pattern in the whole Province.
We have a duty to consider whether we have been so long on the defensive in Northern Ireland that perhaps the iron from the barbed wire has entered into our souls and to a certain extent destroyed our morale.

7.12 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This debate takes place in the dark shadows of gruesome happenings in both parts of Ireland during the past week. There has been the atrocity in Dublin where the British Ambassador and a civil servant from the Northern Ireland Office who was known to some of us, a young lady, were brutally murdered. Then we had the Ebrington barracks incident, when a bomb was exploded under the bed of a member of Her Majesty's Forces. The civilian population in Northern Ireland are wondering, if bombs can be placed in Army barracks, what security they can have in their own homes.
With that dark shadow hanging over us, we are discussing at this late hour on a Friday some very important matters in connection with our Province. I feel that it is almost in vain for the elected representatives from Northern Ireland in this House to be effective in their protests. Some wonder whether they should not

borrow a leaf out of the book of certain Irish Members who, some years ago, in this House were able to put forward their point and their protest was heard because they did not abide by the rules of this House.
We have been protesting for a long time about the way in which Northern Ireland business has been handled in this House, and I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said, that we hope that never again will an Appropriation Order be dealt with at a late hour on a Friday, coupled with many other Orders which are of importance and have been commented on by a Select Committee of this House. I feel that it is hardly fair that a matter which really concerns the budget of Northern Ireland relating to Departments under the old Assembly should be handled as it is being handled.
We appreciate that the Lord President of the Council has given us extra time, even on a Friday evening, to deal with these issues, and we shall listen with interest to what the Minister of State has to say. Northern Ireland Members cannot get home tonight anyway, so we shall be quite happy to have a prolonged debate. Our colleagues in this part of the United Kingdom can get home, but we in Northern Ireland are now so isolated and cut off that after 8 o'clock there are no passenger aircraft services to our constituencies. The Under-Secretary of State can smile because he can have transport at any time, and rightly so. If he can get the best possible space ship to carry him, all the better for the agricultural interests of Northern Ireland. I have no objection to that. But one sometimes wonders why the travel link between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is being undermined in such a way that we are being isolated.
When I attended this House some years ago it was possible for me to be here until a late hour and still get a passenger service from Heathrow to Aldergrove. But now shortly after 8 o'clock there are no passenger aircraft. This is hardly fair to the people of Northern Ireland and the business community there. After all, the business community of Northern Ireland and their relationship with their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom are of vital importance to the prosperity of Northern Ireland, and every


effort should be made to ensure that the link, instead of being eroded, is strengthened. However, we are in the happy position that we cannot get home tonight, and we can make use of the time that has been graciously given to us by the Lord President.
I am sure that I have the sympathy of the Minister of State in this matter. I am sure he would prefer to have had this debate at another time, when other Members of the House would have had an opportunity of listening to it. I remember the euphoria in this House when the former Prime Minister announced to a packed Chamber—it was also on a Friday, if my memory serves me—that Stormont was no more. I remember a Member meeting me downstairs and saying "The problems have all been solved". I said "Your problems are just commencing. You have had a Sunday school picnic so far. Now you will see real trouble".
Many hon. Members who had a great interest in Northern Ireland, who were concerned with denouncing the B-specials or tearing the character out of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or attacking the Establishment of Northern Ireland, no longer take time to listen to Northern Ireland debates. Their interest in Northern Ireland was never real or genuine. They were just repeating a particular party shibboleth. Now, when we come to bread-and-butter issues, when we are concerned with the housing and employment of people in Northern Ireland, when we come to the real difficulties that the Government have to face, those people are no longer here to listen to us. Unfortunately for this House, our debates take place at times when hon. Members are not available to listen, or else they do not desire to do so.
But the representatives of Northern Ireland, so long as they are sent here by the people of Northern Ireland, will continue to represent them. That is why we are here this evening, to seek through this forum, to put the case for the people of Northern Ireland.
I wish to comment on a matter which was very ably put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South, namely rating in Northern Ireland. I can confirm that there are small businesses which have closed down simply because they were unable to meet their rate bill. Representations have been made

to me by a small business man whose rates were £1,000 a year and whose rate bill is now £3,000 a year.
One has only to think for a moment of the circumstances in which small businesses operate today, against tremendous odds, not only because of the present state of the economy, not only because of unemployment—when people are unemployed, they do not have the money to spend in these small establishments—but all the time having to face the security situation as well. The very lifeline of many small businesses has almost been severed.
I regret that a strong statement was issued from the Northern Ireland Office today to the effect that there will be no let-up in regard to commercial rating. I understand—I wish to put this plainly —that the representation made by the various commerce associations and the chamber of trade was not that businesses should be relieved from rates but that the rates should be phased in to give them the opportunity to pay. That is only fair, and the Government ought to take it into account.
Commercial and other ratepayers are not saying that they will not pay their rates, but they point out that their rates have been doubled or trebled, and they ask for a phasing in. If they are phased in, they say, every penny will be paid. I ask the Government to look again at this issue, whatever decision they have made. Can they not help these business men and in that way help to keep Northern Ireland going?
Those of us who have seen the destruction in our Province are proud of businesses which, an hour or so after an explosion, board up their premises, open the door, and put out a sign "We are still in business". We are glad that that spirit prevails. Those people have a right to be heard in the House, and their plea should be accepted by the Government. I make that plea on their behalf tonight.
I do not believe that the Minister of State is a hard man who wants to be harsh. I am sure that he realises that what we say is true, and I trust that he will be able to give some comfort to these people. As I say, there is no claim that they should not pay their rates. The plea is that the rates should be phased


in such a way as to help keep them in business. What benefit will it be if small businesses, or even larger establishments, are closed?
I come now to the appeal system, about which I am not so optimistic as my right hon. Friend seems to be. I wonder how many commercial and non-commercial ratepayers have appealed, and how many have been successful. I did not give the Minister notice of this question, so, if he cannot give the answer now, perhaps I shall have to send a chaser later on and receive the answer then. But it will be helpful to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland to know how the appeal system is working and how many appeals have been successful.
I come now to the situation at Alder-grove, and I underline all that has been said from these Benches emphasising the importance of security there. But what I cannot understand is that the only airport which serves the civilian population of Northern Ireland is Aldergrove and that that airport now has only one road to it for both incoming and outgoing traffic. With just one incident on that road, the airport will be closed.
Of course, if I were a suspicious individual, I might think that the Whips had decided that that would be a good way of keeping certain Members from coming over to the House in an emergency. But I make no such suggestion, knowing how well they help to bring other Members to the House, even assisting them with motor cars, to ensure that they are here on important occasions. I make no such suggestion, therefore, but I emphasise again that if there is one incident on that road, Aldergrove airport is closed. It could be closed tonight by one person making a telephone call and saying that there is a bomb in a certain place. This is the sad fact of the situation, and we had better face it.
If there were two entrances, if there were another road, things would be different. I cannot understand why the security forces took the measures they took without consulting those in the area who know. I have been informed—I have consulted my hon. Friend who is the Member for the area—that local people could have shown the authorities a far

better system which would have given better security to the airport while at the same time affording a better way of entrance and exit to and from Aldergrove airport. Unfortunately, those people were not consulted.
What emergency plans do the Government have for seeing that Sydenham airport is open if Aldergrove is closed in a state of emergency? What will the people of Northern Ireland, including the business community and Members of Parliament, do if Aldergrove is closed? Shall we be held back and have no way of getting quickly to London or other places on the mainland? Is Sydenham to be put into such a state that, in an emergency, it could be used for both passenger and other flights? The link is vital. Are there plans in the offing to deal with that emergency?
I join my hon. Friends in condemning those pilots who make their money by ferrying passengers from Belfast to Heathrow but are not prepared to stay in Belfast—this applies not to all of them but certainly to some—and demand that they be flown to Glasgow. When weather conditions are not good in Glasgow in the morning, flights from Belfast are delayed. I have many times gone to Aldergrove for the early morning flight at five minutes to eight and been told at the desk that I shall have to wait for an hour or an hour and a half because the flight from Glasgow bringing in the pilot has not arrived. What will happen if terrorism increases on this side of the water? Where would the pilots go then? Is it suggested that they fly from Heathrow to Glasgow? This matter needs to be ventilated in public, for I do not believe that the public know what is happening.
I certainly lay blame upon British Airways for many other matters which we have brought to the Minister's attention, but I shall not deal with them tonight save to point out that the lives of many passengers could be made easier in their journey by British Airways. Time and again passengers are put into one bus and there is a refusal to put on another. Women and children are crammed into one bus—they are almost prised in—so that another bus need not be used. Sometimes there are no stairs. On one occasion, a TriStar had to be flown to


another airport because there was not the necessary equiment to take the passengers off the flight.
At this point, I take up what my right hon. Friend said about harassment under the security system. I do not see why a person carrying a hard-backed book can come in one way and then, when he goes through the security the other way to return, have the same book taken off him and be told that he must not carry a hard-backed book. What does one do? I understand that one passenger tore off the covers of his book and handed it to the security personnel. He was then allowed to take his book aboard the plane. On one occasion I was taking home some parliamentary papers, carrying them in a plain paper file. I was told that I could not carry them in the file so I removed the papers and put them inside a newspaper. Apparently that was acceptable although an ordinary paper file was not.
Those are the problems facing the business community. When some business men come over here they do not want to bring a brief case or suitcase. They merely want to carry their papers. They want to come off the flight, go straight to their appointment, do their work and get on the return flight without delay. However, they are not permitted to do so. I sometimes wonder whether some people have a vested interest in plastic bags. They seem to think that by proliferating their use they will help the situation.
I have referred to practical matters that should be dealt with urgently. Speedy action should be taken as they are connected with the good name of Northern Ireland and with facilities for getting the people to and from the Province. The people of Northern Ireland believe in the Union. They believe that they are part of the United Kingdom and that they should remain part of it. If that Union means anything, it should mean parity of social services. The social services that are available in this country should be available to the citizens of Northern Ireland. It is not right to say in these days of austerity, as they must be in all parts of the United Kingdom, that Northern Ireland social services should not be raised to the level of social services that are available elsewhere. The point has been

raised before, but the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act still does not apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. These are matters in which we are interested as we believe that the citizens of Northern Ireland should have parity with the rest of the Union.
We also believe in equality of opportunity. The people of Northern Ireland should have the same opportunity as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, we cannot have equality of opportunity if we do not have proper security. In this instance I disagree wholeheartedly and radically with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). Surely security is the first priority. If people are not permitted to go out of their homes or live in them in peace, we cannot have any prosperity in the Province.
We believe that we should have a fair slice of the national purse. The figures that have been published by the Northern Ireland Office show that in past years we have dragged behind. As a result, we find ourselves in our present position.
The Government have a difficult task. I appreciate that it is not easy, but it is one that they have to undertake. They have taken on the duty and they must fulfil the obligations that lie with them as the present Government of Northern Ireland.
I now turn to the Order. I shall deal with various matters in special reference to it, some of them relating to my constituency. In an appropriation measure Members of Parliament have an opportunity to raise constituency matters. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South has rightly said, apart from the district councillors we are the only elected representatives of Northern Ireland. Only the district councillors and ourselves have the opportunity of bringing forward these matters and ventilating them.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend has referred to Questions. In some instances there has been reticence on the part of the Northern Ireland Office to answer certain Questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and myself have been asking Questions about certain grants of money and their allocation to associations throughout the Province. I am glad to know that the information will


be made available to Members of Parliament. However, I find that unless I put "W" after a Question I have little chance of getting an Answer quickly. I know that some of my hon. Friends put priority on all their Questions in that way. That seems the only way in which we can be facilitated with a ready Answer.
I have had many differences with the Northern Ireland Ministers, including the Secretary of State, as is well known, but I must say that in departmental matters I have found them courteous and helpful to me, and I shall continue to make my representations. I hope that they will continue to be courteous and helpful. I must put that on the record, because they have helped us with the difficulties of our constituents.
Can the Minister obtain information for me about the progress of the River Main scheme, a scheme that affects the whole of my constituency? It is under way and I should like to have a progress report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) spoke about money being spent extravagantly on roads and other matters. I do not know whether it involves extravagant expenditure, but I should like to have some details of a plan to put back part of the railway that used to run from the town of Portrush in my constituency to the Giant's Causeway. I understand that it was the first electric railway in the world. Unfortunately, it was done away with before people had a vision of its value for tourism. I understand that it is to be restored not from Portrush but from Bushmills to the Giant's Causeway, and I should like to know the exact position.
People in the area have told me that they would like to have the railway, but that its real benefit would come if it ran from Portrush. They do not believe that people will bus out to Bushmills and go the rest of the distance to the Giant's Causeway by rail. How much will the railway cost? I should like to see every tourist facility and attraction in the area, but I should like to have more facts about that matter. I understand that the railway runs through a golf course and that there are difficulties about that. I have made representations to the Department about those difficulties. Have they been resolved?
I turn to assistance to industry, under Class II. Is the Minister yet in a position to give us any information about the negotiations over the Ballymena textile firm?
Can the Minister tell us whether the problem about the membership of the Consumer Council has been resolved? I understand that his predecessor refused to appoint to the council the person nominated by the Association of Local Councils.
An announcement has been made in Northern Ireland that a new prefabricated house has been perfected. Here I come to Class V, which concerns housing services. Will the Housing Executive give a break to this project, produced in Northern Ireland? How will it bs exploited to the assistance of the people of Northern Ireland?
I come next to planning, under Class VI. I begin with a word of appreciation to the Planning Commission, which has done very good work. The system of appeals to the commission is very good, and I pay tribute to the way in which it is now expediting planning. But in rural districts the planning officer seems to take it into his head that it is his responsibility to reject applications simply because there is no sewerage. I cannot understand that. I appear at many planning appeals. When I ask the planning office "Will there be a sewage works in this area in the foreseeable future?" he says "No". Yet that is given as the reason for turning down a planning application.
Another reason advanced is that there are not sufficient facilities. I believe that people should be encouraged to build their own houses. If people are prepared to invest in a country, they will work hard for that country. I hope that the matter will be examined realistically. If a person wants to build a house in a particular area, why should the question of lack of sewerage facilities be given as a reason for not granting planning permission?
We must also consider the relevance of water supplies, which is extremely important for rural constituencies. Many of our constituents feel very deeply about these problems, and I hope that the Minister will take them on board. I hope that he will look at some of the sewerage schemes which are in hand to see what


is delaying them. There is a particularly difficult situation at Craiga Hulliar. Perhaps the Minister can give some information on that matter.
I turn to Class VIII relating to educational questions. It seems surprising that even though class sizes are fairly large, the teacher training intake is being reduced. If such training dries up, surely it will be difficult to reduce class sizes in the coming days. I appreciate that the subject of secondary education is being reviewed, but can the Minister assist me in regard to Broughshane Primary School? I recently took a deputation to see the Minister about that school and it would be helpful if he could give me some information.
I turn to Class IX, hospital services, on which we could spend a great deal of time. The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a great furore in County Antrim in regard to the announcement about the new hospital that is to be built between Ballymena and Antrim. This is related to cut-backs in funds for the Waveney Hospital. It is understood that contracts given to consultants in the hospital have not been honoured. As a result there will be a run-down in that hospital and a lack of facilities in the area. I hope that the Minister will look into that matter. If he wishes me to do so, I can supply him with some further information. I do not expect him to answer these matters off the cuff, but I hope to receive a reply at some time soon.
There is one other matter which I would like to mention, and it relates to consultation. There is an important scheme involving a new town centre in Ballymena. I was to lead a deputation to meet the Minister on Friday. The fact is that the scheme was announced without the mayor of the town and his officials having been told about it. I was certainly not told about the matter, but apparently it was announced to the Press. It would be helpful if information about important decisions in constituencies were given to those who have an interest locally. It is hardly fair to arrange a deputation to see a Minister only to discover that the very matters on which they propose to see him have already been contained in a Press announcement. There is a tendency in some Government Departments to overlook the elected representative. The local representatives should be told when a

vast scheme of reorganisation is to take place—and certainly in a case when a whole town centre is involved. Those are some of the matters that disturb us.
This will probably be the last debate in which Northern Ireland Members will be taking part before the recess. [Interruption.] I am talking about a long debate of this nature, dealing with Northern Ireland business. I hope that we shall not have another string of Orders next Friday. We shall be going back to our constituencies and returning here in October. There could be many sad and frightening happenings before then. We are not like ordinary Members of Parliament going back to their constituencies to do the normal job of a Member of Parliament. I trust that the Minister will realise, as we do, the seriousness of the security situation. I trust that firm measures will be taken in Northern Ireland to deal with those guilty of atrocities. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will be able to feel confident that effective security measures are being taken.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I take part in this debate because, looking through the appropriations, I notice that in Class II, No. 1, there is an appropriation for expenditure by the Department of Commerce:
on provision of land and buildings, selective assistance to industry and shipbuilding".
It was the word "shipbuilding" that made me feel that I should look back through the debates of last year to discover whether I, who had spoken in the debate on the nationalisation of Harland and Wolff, was not correct in thinking that the then Minister of State had said in the debate that no more money after the £60 million that was then voted to the company would be forthcoming.
Looking back to the report of that debate I found the passage that had stuck in my memory, and I shall quote it. In the course of his speech the Minister said:
I have spoken today and on previous occasions about the last chance, about there being no bottomless pit of public money and about the need for the company"—
that is Harland and Wolff—
to demonstrate long before 1979 its ability to take on new work without loss—and I have said that if the company cannot do this


it will be time for the Government to call a halt and to permit the rundown and even closure of the business."—[Official Report, 1st August 1975; Vol. 896, c. 2480.]
When I heard those words last year I assumed that the Minister was saying that the £60 million would be adequate for the company to meet its responsibilities and continue in business. As we know, or think we know from various Press reports that have been circulating, particularly last month, there is now a question hanging over the company whether that £60 million is adequate and whether those words, which might be described as a death knell, are the policy of the Government or whether they have had other thoughts.
When I saw the appropriation, I thought "Good heavens, the Government are prepared to put more financial assistance into this company". I hope that the Minister of State will tell me whether my supposition is right. I know from answers to various questions that I have put to Ministers that we await the study on the new economic strategy for the Province. The Minister of State promised that we should have that before the House went into recess—I hope that I am not putting words into his mouth. I am quoting from an answer of 27th May this year. I have some cuttings here, one of which is dated 2nd June 1976, which says:
Rees discussion on Harland
It goes on to say that the Secretary of State was to meet the chairman, Sir Brian Morton, and that they were presumably to discuss the future of the company. Another cutting dated 8th July 1976 says:
£3 million Korea order for Harland
We are told in that cutting that the company now has orders for 18 engines from Korea.
I am told, too, that the company still possesses on its order book an order for a tanker for the Maritime Fruit Company, and if the hon. Gentleman asks the chairman, he will tell him that no fewer than 10 ships are on the order book which, it is hoped, will carry the company forward to 1978. But—and this is the "but" that troubles me and made me feel that I should say something—if the situation is graver than the orders I have referred to would suggest, the Minister of

State has a bounden duty to tell us what that situation is.
The Minister is reputed to have said that the £60 million which should have carried the company through to the third quarter of 1978
will not last as long as we thought it would.
That quotation is from a Press report. I lay stress on the word "we", because presumably it does not refer to the management but to the Government and the management. I suggest that if the company is to have its present situation laid at its door, the word "we" is inappropriate, but if the Government have with the company negotiated the situation, the responsibility lies on the Government as well as on the management to explain why the money is not going to last as long and what they plan to do about it.
For instance, the chairman has said that the £60 million is being used in accordance with the plan agreed with the Government. The chairman has already put forward suggestions as to how he thinks the company could be carried through the difficult period after 1978 and before that terrible year of 1979, the autumn of which is perhaps the last moment after which the Government are not prepared to give further financial assistance.
Perhaps, therefore, the best way I can make my comments and bring them into focus is to pose a number of questions. First, how much of the £60 million has been spent, and are the Government prepared to extend the amount of money to the company so as to enable it to continue in existence? If not, what contingency plans have the Government for the yard, bearing in mind the appallingly high unemployment and the catastrophic effect closure of the yard would have on the economic situation in Northern Ireland?
Secondly, what consideration has the Minister given to the company's proposal for State-sponsored contracts to bridge the two-year gap between 1978 and 1980, when the world shipping market is expecting a cyclical upswing? That seems to be a sensible and intelligent approach to tremendously difficult problems, and I should like to think that the Government are giving it most careful consideration so as to enable the company to continue in existence.
Thirdly, there is the question of any proposal to run down the work force. I want to combine that with another appropriation—finance for industrial retraining. I think I am right in saying that comparatively recently, perhaps in the last two or three weeks, the managing director of Short Brothers and Harland was reported in the Belfast Telegraph as saying that he would like another 1,000 skilled workers but could not find them.
That is a remarkable statement, because the appropriation is for many millions of pounds, and one wonders whether industrial retraining is achieving what we all want—improving the skills of the work force. How is it possible for a company that wants 1,000 extra workers, not to be able to get them simply because they are not in existence? This suggests that industrial retraining is either not being directed at the right skills, or is simply not achieving the objective that most of us persuaded ourselves that it was achieving.
I understand that there is a proposal by the European Commission that member States should cut back on their tanker building in such a way as to keep the shipbuilding industry of Europe in existence. That would suggest that the Government are looking at the proposal, and they must be thinking of Harland and Wolff since that company has a tanker yard. Would the Minister confirm that any thoughts he has about this matter are in the context of the British shipbuilding industry, irrespective of whether a company is within the nationalised corporation?
Next week we shall debate the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, and I was one of those hon. Members who attended most of the 58 sittings of the Standing Committee. We shall discuss whether Harland and Wolff can be associated with the British Shipbuilding Corporation. The Government were prepared to listen to the Scottish nationalists and make concessions to them and their shipyards. I understand they are now listening to the representations of Welsh nationalists and considering taking Bristol Channel Ship Repairers out of the Bill because that is what the Welsh Nationalists want. I do not mind Bristol Channel Ship Repairers being taken out of the Bill—in fact, I hope that the Bill

is scrapped altogether—but if this is being done for both Scotland and Wales, why should Northern Ireland be ignored? Harland and Wolff's problems are not the problems of a company, but the problems of an industry, and it is not just the British industry, but the industry of Europe and the world.
I come now to the question of the relationship between Short Bros. and Harland and Rolls-Royce. Short Bros. was interested in the Rolls-Royce company at Dundonald. I read the minutes of evidence which the company gave to the Expenditure Committee's Defence and External Affairs Sub-committee about its guided weapons side. I discovered on page 73 of the report of that committee that Mr. Paul Foreman, managing director of Shorts, said:
We have told the Minister of State in Northern Ireland that we will be prepared to look again at the Rolls-Royce situation if we are invited to do so.… The acquisition of the Rolls-Royce plant at Dundonald certainly could be of advantage to us. We certainly would not undertake anything… unless we thought it was good for us commercially.
The Rolls-Royce plant at Dundonald will be closed down, as I understand it. Could the Minister tell us whether Short Bros. and Harland was given the opportunity to take over the plant, and if not, why not? It seems that there was an opportunity to save jobs in Northern Ireland and any opportunity to do so should not be overlooked in any circumstances.

8 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: I think I speak for all hon. Members from Northern Ireland when I say a word of thanks to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for the speech he made on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. In past years, many hon. Members have attacked Northern Ireland, and it is good to hear one man from this side of the Irish Sea who is prepared to speak for it.
By and large, Northern Ireland Members have concentrated today upon local government and especially upon the subject of rates. It is upon that that I should like to make a few remarks. It would be foolish to try to ignore the difficulties and ill-feeling caused in Northern Ireland by the shift in the rates burden


from the domestic to the commercial sector. Certainly the number of representations I have received has been considerable.
The representations I have received from the business men in Londonderry have been detailed and were passed by me to the Ombudsman. He was unable to deal with the case because the group of business men concerned were not considered to be "a person" and the legislation is so narrowly drawn that the Parliamentary Commissioner was unable to take up the case.
I have advised my constituents to institute a few test cases for themselves. I believe that that is the only way in which their voices will be heard. Perhaps there is a case for reviewing the law governing the Parliamentary Commissioner, with possibly a change to enable him to take up cases involving groups and organisations. No doubt the Minister will tell me, however, that there are serious difficulties in that approach.
In all the representations my constituents have made to me one factor has emerged repeatedly. It involves the problems created by the security cages in Londonderry and the security railings and barrels in the villages and towns in my constituency. No doubt the story is the same elsewhere. It can make a great deal of difference to a business man whether his business is situated inside the security area—which is a distinct advantage—or outside. Yet the valuation officers rate the premises practically the same.
This matter should be looked at seriously, because the two cannot be the same for the purposes of valuation. The Minister should take that problem in hand rather than leave it to the individual concerned, because it is causing a great deal of anger among those who are on the wrong side of the wire.
One case was brought to me recently and I have written to one of the Ministers about it. It involves a constituent who lives in one of a row of council houses in Londonderry. He lives in the centre of the row, and all the houses are identical. He was told that his rates would go up by 12p a week. Every other householder in the row has been told that his rates will increase by 6p. No doubt I

shall be told that there has been a clerical error, but my constituent has checked up on this matter. I hope that the Minister will take as much care about it as my constituent did, because it is quite wrong that something of that nature can occur.
One of the reasons people enter public life is to do something for those they represent, and the present frustrations among local councils have to be experienced to be believed. They clear the streets and bury the dead—if they have local cemeteries—but they can only talk about the problems over which they have no control.
There is considerable resentment that a large part of the rate levied by each authority is taken by the regional rate, which is different for domestic and non-domestic purposes. It is strange that when the burden has been shifted from householders to commercial premises, the non-domestic rate should also be one-third higher than the domestic rate—thus increasing the burden to a degree that cannot be defended.
Constituents come to me and my colleagues on the local authority complaining about rates, water, sewerage, housing and, above all, planning. I support what has already been said about planning and the difficulties that it causes for many people. Although the attitude of planners has improved, it still leaves much to be desired.
Time and again permission to build is refused in country areas even on sites where there has been a house whose walls still remain. These developments are being turned down because no public sewerage system is available. Yet we have heard in the House before that there is no sewerage system in the whole town of Ballycastle, and that is not a unique instance. Only now we are proposing to instal a public sewerage system—if we can get permission from local farmers—in a hamlet of 20 or 30 houses in my constituency.
Why has sewerage become the key to whether a person is allowed to build a house in the country? These people have usually lived in the country all their lives. Their parents and friends often own land in the country and they have no wish to live in a town.
As a countryman myself, I sympathise with them, and a better attitude in future


will help to arrest the decline in our rural population, with all its consequent problems for our country communities. Heaven knows, our rural population is small enough anyway.
The domestic regional rate in Northern Ireland is about 36p in the pound and the non-domestic rate is about 48p in the pound. Local rates vary from about 14p or 15p in the pound to about 21p or 22p. The local rate is designed to meet local demands. One of the problems that has arisen out of the lack of power of councillors is that they tend to spend more and more time on subjects that used to be of small importance and relegated to second or third place. Councillors have lost the real power to control the way in which people live and to order their lives and determine the sort of conditions that will be created for them. The councillors who represents the people at local level has to do something to fill his time.
One item that is now becoming of major importance and that looms larger and larger at every council meeting is recreation. All sorts of things have been done about recreation and all sorts of tourist schemes are being brought forward. All of them cost a great deal of money. If the councillors had more important things with which to concern themselves, a great deal less time and money would be spent on schemes that will be a drain on the rates for ever.
My local council bought a field on one small council estate and put up two sets of goal posts, and the young people there have had had more fun out of that than out of some of the vast sports complexes being built throughout the country at vast cost. One such sports complex has been built on the west side of Londonderry and the only people I can see who will benefit from it will be the citizens of the Irish Republic. Certainly they will benefit a lot more than my constituents who live on the east bank of the Foyle. Indeed, my constituents cannot go there because if they did they would come back with a hole in their heads—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) would not like his constituents returning with a hole in their heads any more than I should like mine returning in that way.
A further problem which arises with ferocity in the hot weather is the prob-

lem of burning dumps. It would be a very good thing if the people put in charge of running the refuge dumps in Northern Ireland were put through a course teaching them how to keep a dump and how to cover it up so that this problem, which is a continuing source of irritation to so many of our constituents, could be done away with once and for all.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) mentioned that the average rise in the rates payable in Northern Ireland in the current year is 15 per cent. It is strange that every hon. Member from Northern Ireland and every councillor in Northern Ireland has received literally armfuls of complaints about the rates being increased. However, I know of one business premises in Coleraine where the rateable value is now 17 times what it was, and there is a rumour about a business premises somewhere in Londonderry where the rateable value is 22 times the old figure.
When I look at this enormous increase in the rateable value in those properties and hear complaints about the enormous increases in the rates, it occurs to me that there must be a lot of people some place who are paying less. I have not heard very many complaints from them. I know of only one person who is paying lower rates. But there must be many people who are paying less, for it cannot be otherwise.
Even at this late hour on a Friday it would be wrong for me to sit down before saying a brief word about the police and security in my constituency. I call to the Minister's attention the fact that members of the IRA and South and East Londonderry—a group which was broken up to some extent a short time ago—in the last week have bombed the village of Castledawson in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop). Members of the IRA bombed and levelled seven houses in one road in Kilrea, which, per head of the population, has received more bombs than any other town in Ulster. The IRA also bombed two excellent shops in Coleraine last weekend. It is evident that that group of the IRA is back in business. I hope that the security forces will note that and deal with it.
Even more serious incidents have occurred in Londonderry in the past few months, resulting in the death of two


soldiers. One soldier was a young man from Scotland who had been in Northern Ireland for four days when he was shot.
What horrifies me is that this young man was killed in precisely the same way as a police constable was killed on the Walls of Londonderry last year. He was shot from a window of a house which overlooked the Walls. The row of houses is not very long. The window from which the police constable was shot in May 1975 was immediately bricked up. Why were all the windows which overlooked the Walls not bricked up? Why was the window out of which the fatal shot was fired at the soldier left covered with hardboard?
I know that from the line of fire there was a very narrow field in which the shot could be directed, but it was enough. The people who committed that murder must have studied the terrain.
I was appalled when a REME sergeant was killed in Ebrington Barracks in Londonderry last week by a bomb planted under his bed. Is it not time that the security forces in Londonderry took a long and careful look at the methods used in the base and in other parts of the city where the security forces live and work? If that were done, security in these premises would improve.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: We have heard some powerful and effective speeches on behalf of Northern Ireland from hon. Members on both sides of the House, starting with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) who protested strongly that the debate was taking place at this time on a Friday. I associate myself with that protest. It is extremely inconvenient for the House and for all concerned that we should be continuing at this hour.
The debate has been extremely import and significant for Northern Ireland, and many aspects have been raised to which the Minister of State will wish to reply. He will note what the right hon. Member for Down, South said, which we support. High standards of administration are required under direct rule, at a time when the only elected representatives, apart from those serving on district

councils, are hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland.
This is the second Appropriation Order for the current financial year which we have discussed, and it is much the most important. It adds £600 million to the amount we voted in March. As the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said in a telling speech, we are discussing it against the background of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday on public expenditure, when he announced a reduction of £35 million in the expenditure on Northern Ireland for the financial year 1977–78. I realise that the announcement does not directly affect the Order, but it is the background against which we should be talking. The hon. Member for Belfast, West was wrong in thinking that we on this side would oppose any reasonable action to support Northern Ireland's economy. He was right to state that the Government must give some indications of policy and as soon as possible reveal their economic strategy for the Province.
The Minister of State will agree with me that the Chancellor's argument yesterday was that the economy would recover quickly in the United Kingdom and that the gross domestic product would increase at an annual rate of 5 per cent. and manufacturing production at an annual rate of 9 per cent., leading to a fall in unemployment before the end of the year.
Will the Minister of State tell us how confident he is that these assumptions will apply to Northern Ireland and that the economy will recover as quickly? Professor Black, the economist who has been advising the Government's review body on economic strategy for Northern Ireland, said in an article in the Irish Banking Review in June that
while some reduction in unemployment in Northern Ireland might be expected as the United Kingdom swings out of recession there are disquieting signs that in the medium term the recovery will at best be partial.
He added that
it is unlikely that, on the basis of present policies, the local economy can regain the trend of growth of output that it enjoyed for most of the past decade.
That is the grim background. The Minister of State must restore confidence that the Government really have an, economic strategy.
We are entitled to question the Chancellor's assumptions about growth, especially in Northern Ireland, and the resulting public expenditure policies. Professor Black's analysis was made at a time when available figures showed that in the six months leading up to March this year there had been successive increases in industrial production. We on this side have checked the latest figures with the Department of Commerce which show that in the two months following March there was a fall in the index of industrial production, mainly in textiles—the major industry in Northern Ireland Therefore, the prospect may be worse than the Professor feared.
Will the Minister of State therefore answer the hon. Member for Belfast, West and say what plans he has in mind? This should be known as quickly as possible. Public expenditure is very important for Northern Ireland, and the public expenditure survey 1979–80 which we examined the other day showed that it was planned to fall by 5 per cent. between 1975 and 1980.
Employment in manufacturing industry concerns us greatly. It has declined in Northern Ireland in the past 10 years, and Professor Black quotes figures to show that if that figure were to be added to the present unemployment figure of over 11 per cent.—I think one hon. Member mentioned 61,000—we would have a dangerous situation.
Hon. Members on this side have made it quite clear that they are not making the point that public expenditure in Northern Ireland should necessarily be increased in respect of their constituencies. We are saying that Northern Ireland has a unique background of social, economic and security problems. It is a special case in the United Kingdom and deserves sympathetic consideration. The right hon. Member for Down, South pointed out that different standards apply. We also think that the Government must be fully aware of the unemployment implications of their public expenditure policies for Northern Ireland and must urgently produce proposals to stimulate industrial growth and to slow down the contraction of the manufacturing base. Will the Minister of State indicate the progress he is making with his review in that respect, particularly of manufacturing?

On these final points with regard to Government policy in the United Kingdom as a whole, industrial confidence has been seriously undermined in Northern Ireland where investment is the lifeblood of the economy.
In this general context it is worth drawing attention to the facts revealed in a Written Answer of 1st December 1975 published in col. 477 of the Official Report. It was shown that public expenditure per head in Northern Ireland has only since the financial year 1974–75 exceeded that in Scotland and was in previous years lower than that for Wales. This tends to refute the commonly-held view that Northern Ireland has traditionally received an extraordinarily high share of public funds. Certainly that was not so prior to that date. Only since 1974–75 has it tended to be higher than in Scotland. Only after several years of terrorism and destruction has this situation arisen. We do not begrudge fair and reasonable assistance to our hard-pressed fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
After these general comments on public expenditure I should like to mention two more points before the Minister replies. The right hon. Member for Down, South and other hon. Members referred to rates and revaluation. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the interdepartmental committee. I hope he is correct in thinking that the committee will take account of the realities of the cost of living and of the environment in Northern Ireland. I expect that point will be borne in mind by the Minister.
Recently we in the Conservative Party have received a deputation from the Northern Ireland Chamber of Trade, as indeed have other hon. Members. It is quite clear that the recent revaluation has caused particular difficulty for small businesses in Northern Ireland. The deputation gave examples of cases in which because of this 20-year gap between valuations, some firms face rates bills which have increased from less than £1,000 to around £10,000, an increase of over 1,000 per cent. In the absence of due warning it is difficult for a small firm to absorb figures such as that. We accept that valuations may have been lower in Northern Ireland at one time, but the changes have been enormous.
While increases were inevitable under the system of rate financing, what proposals are there in respect of the next valuation? Are plans being made so that these matters can be dealt with in a way which does not cause such confusion and distress? We are not at all happy about the Government's handling of rates. More sympathy should have been shown to the constructive way in which the traders and members of the Chamber of Trade made their case when they visited us here. I believe that they visited the Minister of State and proposed that these rates should be phased. Will he say what answer he gave them on that occasion and why he could not meet their points?
There are 100,000 people employed in the distributive trades in Northern Ireland, and it is estimated that 10,000 to 15,000 could lose their jobs if some form of phased implementation of the revaluation is not adopted. A large proportion of the people in these trades are self-employed, and we on this side of the House take a special interest in the small trader. We want him to survive and to receive assistance from the Government in Northern Ireland. The Government must not ride roughshod over the self-employed merely because they are not highly organised. They are very important people in Northern Ireland.
When the right hon. Gentleman studies the statement by the Chancellor yesterday, he will note the reference to the rephasing of defence works programmes. How far will that affect the back-up services in Northern Ireland where accommodation for the security forces has been slowly improved? It is a question which should be raised in this debate because the point occurs in the Chancellor's statement.
As all hon. Members have agreed, we have heard a very good speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). He pointed out some of the problems of Harland and Wolff which have given risen to anxiety on both sides of the House for a long time. Will the Minister reply to the question which was put to him and say whether the remarks attributed to him and widely reported in national newspapers at the beginning of June are correct? Was there at that time a new cash crisis in the firm, and was it true

that it could not meet its productivity targets? We on this side reaffirm our position with regard to Harland and Wolff, that we do not want to see any obstacle put in the way of efforts by the new management to re-establish the firm as a viable concern.
It has been rightly said—notably by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—that unless we can see our way to secure a peaceful existence for Northern Ireland, a constitutional progress in the Province will be extremely difficult. It is my view—I have always held it, and I repeat it now—that unless the Government set out with real determination to destroy terrorism, it will be a long time before we can achieve that aim.

8.31 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): As the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) said, we have had, albeit at a late hour, an extensive and well-informed debate on many aspects of life in Northern Ireland, and I have a good many questions to answer. The hon. Gentleman urged upon us the highest possible standards in the administration of Northern Ireland in a period of direct rule, and I was glad to hear him say that because, as far as I can see, the biggest obstacle to high standards of administration in the Province are the rather silly little games which his party has been playing over pairing in past weeks, which have certainly restricted the ability of Ministers to administer the Province in a way which, I am sure, most hon. Members wish to see.

Mr. Neave: I did not raise the matter in that light.

Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman made his observation, and I am just giving my comment.
I have a broad range of subjects on which to reply. I thank those hon. Members who gave me notice of the questions which they intended to raise since that has made it far easier for me to reply. I did not receive notice of certain subjects. In some cases I can answer the questions directly from my knowledge as Minister. In others, I am afraid, I shall have to promise to write in reply to the hon. Members concerned, and I


hope that they will be satisfied with that.
I want to say a word about notice because we are attempting to make debates on the Appropriation Order for Northern Ireland equivalent to the Consolidated Fund debates for the United Kingdom. The Appropriation Order covers almost every conceivable aspect of Government policy and administration in Northern Ireland in so far as it is affected by the functions of Departments of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Subjects related to the Northern Ireland Office are not covered. However, the result is that a huge range of matters may be discussed, and hon. Members are quite right, from their point of view, to raise such matters in this debate. Nevertheless, there is the problem of having the appropriate people in the Official Box to provide detailed answers, since many of the matters are extremely detailed, as hon Members will understand.
The same considerations apply to the Consolidated Fund Bill, but United Kingdom Ministers have precise notice of the subjects on which they are expected to reply. Therefore, the nearer we can come to a system of that sort in respect of our Appropriation Order, the nearer we shall be to having satisfactory debates. That is the reason why I say that I shall do my best to answer all the points put to me, but I may have to disappoint one or two hon. Members and do my best hereafter to repair the omissions.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke about holding a debate at this time of day. We have had an open-ended debate, although debates on Orders normally last for an hour and a half. However, we have had the time limit removed. It was thought by the Government's business managers when the business was arranged, albeit on a Thursday, that we should have a large part of the normal working day to discuss these matters. Unfortunately, things have not gone particularly well in that respect, for reasons beyond my control and beyond the control of the Northern Ireland Office. I merely take note of the fact that
The best laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft a-gley.
I believe that Friday is not the best time for discussing Northern Ireland business,

but if we do not discuss it on a Friday, the chances are that we must return to discussing it at a late hour of night. Whether that is an improvement on these arrangements is another matter.
Rating has received a wide airing from the hon. Member for Abingdon, the right hon. Member for Down, South, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). They concentrated on the problems of commercial rating.
The hon. Member for Abingdon was right to say that I received a deputation from the Northern Ireland Chamber of Trade to discuss its problems. He asked me what answer I gave when it asked me what I could do to help it with the phasing in of the increased sums to be paid as a result of the increased rateable values following revaluation. The straight and simple answer is that I had to remind it that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had already told it that he was not prepared to meet it on this matter when it met him a few weeks ago.
Obviously the situation is worth a few more words than that. I have had the greatest admiration for the shopkeepers and tradesmen of Northern Ireland, particularly since I have been at the Department of Commerce. I appreciate that most of them work from town centres and city centres and that many have been subjected to a severe battering for many years. The courage with which they face this situation is a source of admiration.
However, we are faced with a considerable problem in trying to meet them. If we are to allow them a phasing in, it means, in effect, that we shall in some way be subsidising the commercial ratepayer. As far as I am aware, there are only two sources of subsidy—namely, other ratepaying sections of the community and the Government. In the current situation I cannot see that the Government will be able to find more money to provide a further subsidy for commercial ratepayers.
I am not entirely sure that an increase in the rates for other sections of the community in Northern Ireland for the purpose of meeting the problems that face commercial ratepayers would be a


popular measure. That is the difficulty in which we find ourselves. I have done my best within the powers given to me as head of the Department of Commerce in Northern Ireland to provide them with extra assistance. I have improved the security grants that are available to firms to enable them to employ security men to protect their premises from bomb attacks. That has helped them a little.
When I received the deputation I was surprised to find that not one employer in retailing had at that date availed himself of the temporary employment subsidy that is available to help to meet the cost of such employment by retailers and other employers in this time of high unemployment. I hope that a number of firms will begin to take care of that.
When it comes to problems of individual hardship, I am convinced that the correct procedure is for the individual ratepayer to launch an appeal. Despite what the hon. Member for Londonderry said, the rateable value of a shop within the protected area of a city as opposed to the rateable value of one just outside such an area is an ideal matter for individual consideration rather than for settlement by means of broad Government policy. I urge shopkeepers and tradesmen who find themselves in such situations to consider that method of redress.
The right hon. Member for Down, South accurately described the principles on which the regional rate is cast and drew attention to the interdepartmental committee that has been considering whether it might be good to have a new approach to the problem. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a date for the announcement of its results, but I can say that the committee's work is far advanced. However, there are other people who must be consulted about these matters besides those involved in our own machinery. That accounts for some of the delay which is still occurring—perhaps "delay" is the wrong word, because it seems to imply that the committee has been tardy. It has not: it is working as briskly as it can within the administrative machinery within which it finds itself.
There is no doubt that the gap of 20 years was the greatest cause of the hardship to members of the trading and commercial community. I suppose that to

some extent they gained advantages in that they had low rateable values for 20 years, values which became lower and lower. Although that can be exaggerated, correcting the situation at the end of the 20 years meant that some people had quite a shock.
The Government intend that the next revaluation shall take place in 1981. That is the date towards which we are working. I hope that the people in Northern Ireland can then settle down to revaluations on the same basis as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I was going to say "on the same basis as we enjoy", but "enjoy" is perhaps not the most appropriate word.
The next major topic which the right hon. Gentleman raised was that of delays in answering parliamentary Questions and correspondence. I take his criticism in good part. The machinery of government as between Westminster and Belfast and Stormont was reviewed earlier this year. No new procedures to deal with the problem to which the right hon. Gentleman and others drew attention were brought up at that stage, perhaps because there was not the same sense of urgency then being expressed in the House as there was in this debate. I shall consider whether matters can be improved. I give that undertaking without qualification, but a few words of defence and explanation on behalf of the very hard-working staff are required.
Comparisons were made between the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office. The Northern Ireland Office has about 1,200 civil servants and the Scottish Office has about 10,000. Therefore, the Scottish Office per se is a vastly larger information-collecting and processing organisation. That is not the whole story, because the Northern Ireland Office has the Northern Ireland civil servants as well. Nevertheless, that gives an indication of part of the problem.
Whatever happens, all the information gathered by the Northern Ireland Civil Service must go through the Northern Ireland Office before it becomes a parliamentary answer. I do not want to make too much of that point, but it is one of the considerations to be borne in mind. The Scottish Office has many years of tradition of providing answers straight to the House from St. Andrew's House. We


have the problem of co-ordinating the Departments in Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland Office.

Mr. Molyneaux: The Minister has put his finger on a sensitive spot because some of us suspected that this was the problem. I do not say that it is a problem deliberately created, but I remember that on one occasion a letter came to me by mistake from a Department for which he was responsible. I do not blame the Minister for that. It was a draft submitted by the Northern Ireland Department to the Northern Ireland Office at Stormont. I received the wrong one—not the one the Minister should have signed but the original draft that came from the Department. I wonder whether we are suffering the effects of having two layers of administration in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Moyle: That is part of the problem, but I do not want to exaggerate it. It is not the nub of the problem, to which I shall be coming in a moment. There are other peripheral matters that must be borne in mind.
It must not be forgotten that Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office spend a great deal of time in the air travelling between London and Belfast. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to get hold of a Minister to ask him to sign a Written Answer at the appropriate time.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said words to the effect that he was sure that Northern Irish Members did not ask more convoluted, difficult or involved Questions than, say, their Scottish colleagues. In fact they do, and I shall explain why. I suppose that the closest relationship to the Secretary of State in relation to the Royal Ulster Constabulary is the relationship of the Home Secretary to the Metropolitan Police. But the Metropolitan Police are not in the same situation as the RUC. The RUC has a real man-sized job on its hands. Sometimes it is difficult for them to take people away from direct operational staff work to answer Questions which are tabled by Northern Irish Members. I do not criticise those hon. Members, because they have a duty to reveal the facts for the purpose of informing their constituents.
The type of Question asked about security in Northern Ireland is considerably more involved than any Question asked, for example, about the police in

Great Britain, or even about the Metropolitan Police. Normally Questions asked about the Metropolitan Police or the police generally in Great Britain relate to broad matters of equipment or to specific incidents. But in the case of the RUC often the questions are different. Despite the allegations sometimes made in this House that there is not a sufficiently close working involving the RUC, the Army and other defence forces, it must be said that the operations of the Army, which come directly under the Ministry of Defence rather than under the Northern Ireland Office, are inextricably bound up with the operations of the RUC. The Army, which has an operational rôle of fairly high intensity in Northern Ireland has to be brought in on a specific question—for example, in regard to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Mr. Powell: I have not had an opportunity to consult my colleagues, but I imagine that I am speaking for them when I say that if from time to time Ministers find a Question designated with a "W" causes a particular problem, my colleagues and I would be quick to respond, unless there were a special reason for urgency which they could explain, to any suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

Mr. Moyle: That is a handsome gesture on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. We shall see what we can do to work on those lines.
I do not make any particular point about the burdens being laid on the Northern Ireland Office by hon. Members of the House in general, or Northern Irish Members in particular.
I fully appreciate that Northern Ireland Members have to ask these questions. I am trying to explain some of the difficulties. This month we have been asked 123 Written Questions, of which 82 were priority. Of these 33 were complex Questions relating to security statistics. These involved calling on the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army to make a substantial contribution to answering them.
The only other observation I wish to make before leaving this subject—this is a piece of well-meant advice which I hope the hon. Member for Antrim, North will take—concerns his frustration about receiving a quick answer. He said that


the only way he could ensure a speedy reply was to ask for a priority answer. I hope that he will not follow his frustrations through logically. If he does, it means that the whole system becomes overloaded and fails to work. This point was emphasised when the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) introduced the priority Written Question system into the procedures of the House some years ago.
I move now to the subject of Alder-grove, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), who represents the constituency in which the airport is situated. The trials of civilian travel are not entirely unknown to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. For obvious reasons, I cannot dilate any further on that. We experience these trials from time to time and appreciate the difficulties, though perhaps not so acutely as Northern Ireland Members and other hon. Members.
I agree that Aldergrove is a vital link in communications between Belfast and London. It is a crucial link these days. Whatever appearances to the contrary, it is the intention of the Government to protect that link. Unfortunately, practically all security measures that I can think of involve a balance between achieving security and subjecting people to personal inconvenience and sacrifice. The occasions on which we can achieve greater security at no cost to an individual's convenience are unhappily rare. The best way to be secure is for everyone of us to lock ourselves up in a room bristling with machine guns and piled with tinned foods and remain there until our natural lives come to an end. It is a rather exaggerated way of solving the problem.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Antrim, South and his constituents have had a new dose of this inconvenience in the past few days when certain roads round the airport have been closed. The hon. Member drew attention to the lack of consultation. I was sad to hear that people in the locality have known about these plans for about seven weeks, because the object of avoiding prior consultation was a fear on the part of those concerned that if there was prior consultation there might be others in the

Province who would seize the opportunity between the commencement of consultation and the imposition of measures to act while the going was good.
Obviously, those in the locality who knew about this were sensible people and did not spread the word around. That was for the benefit of all. That is why, if there is to be consultation, it has to be after the implementation of measures rather than before. The hon. Member drew attention to Killead Road. I can assure him that the road services officers are considering the problems that have arisen there as a result of the road closures. Certainly the new traffic flows resulting from road closures have been monitored and will continue to be monitored on the basis of seeing whether remedial action will have to be taken at some time in the future.
There is no doubt, however—and I would not try to deny it—that it means inconvenience for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The roads have been closed because of the danger, among other things, of a stand-off mortar attack. Such an attack took place there some months ago. I can disclose that I was in an aircraft which was taking off when the attack took place. I hope that I showed the calm to which the hon. Gentleman referred as being shown by his fellow passengers. In fact, I assure him that I did do so, because I did not know that I had been under mortar attack until I had arrived at London, so I was able to take a proper Nelsonian attitude to the situation.
We are aware of some of the dangers. But it is not just a question of passengers. Reference has been made to the British Airline Pilots Association. A certain amount of hard comment has been made about aircrews. I am not sure that we in this House are in a position to make such comments because, although hon. Members have been a little critical of the way in which airline pilots would not spend time in Northern Ireland, to the members of the association no doubt it seems a lot more dangerous than it does to people who live there—just as people who live there perhaps tend to underrate the dangers which airline pilots see from hijacking and travelling to Belfast, and just as people in Londonderry tend to think that Belfast is a terribly dangerous place while people in Belfast think the


same of Londonderry. I do not think that we can necessarily be unduly critical in these matters.
I thought that the attitude of the hon. Member for Antrim, South towards public expenditure was very refreshing. To come forward with a proposal for saving sums of money is rather unique in our discussions. I found an instinctive sympathy with him when he made his contribution, because I think I can see that the Belfast ring motorway has never recovered from the period when I was head of the Department of the Environment for a few months. I think I am on his side. Exactly what will happen, I do not know. But my initial information leads me to feel that there is a better argument for it, and I will let him know.
The hon. Gentleman also hoped that the security forces would move from the defensive to the offensive. I would not necessarily agree that they have been on the defensive up to now, but it is the intention of the Chief Constable of the RUC to adopt offensive measures for his force. But I would not want to go into greater detail on that.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked how many people had used the appeals system in respect of revaluation. I am afraid that that, too, is something I shall have to find out for him, and I shall let him know the answer. He wants a breakdown between domestic and non-domestic ratepayers.
There are no specific plans for using Sydenham as an alternative to Aldergrove in an emergency because—I will not go into detail—it is not regarded as suitable, but there are plans at Aldergrove for use in an emergency. They do not involve the Sydenham airfield. The hon. Member said also that the inhabitants of the Aldergrove area had knowledge of a better security system around the airport than the one which the Government have applied. If they would let us know about it we shall evaluate it and see whether we can make use of it.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North also raised the question of the railway extension between Portrush and Bush-mills. I shall have to write to him about that. Unfortunately I am not yet in a position to talk about Ballymena Textiles, which I know is a matter of grave concern to him.
On the question of teacher supply, I would point out that Northern Ireland classes have been traditionally larger in terms of the pupil-teacher ratio than those on this side of the water. We intend to move to a situation in which the pupil-teacher ratio is the same on both sides of the Irish Sea. We hope that this will be achieved by 1981, and we are on target at the moment, in spite of information in the Press about the situation on this side of the water. My Department was able to create 800 new teacher posts in Northern Ireland for the coming academic year. That will help the situation considerably. About 150 of these had not been taken up by area education and library boards a few weeks ago so we have been engaged in a chasing up exercise.
The hon. Member for Belfast West (Mr. Fitt), the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and the hon. Member for Abingdon all raised the question of the general economic situation. When hon. Members draw attention to the serious unemployment figures prevailing in Northern Ireland I do not regard that as whining. It is a proper contribution to the debate about this appallingly serious problem. Our general assessment is that the Northern Ireland economy is, by and large, a function of the United Kingdom economy as a whole. The level of activity in the rest of the United Kingdom has an important effect on the level of activity in Northern Ireland. For this reason, as the economy of the United Kingdom picks up it should have a substantial impact on the Northern Ireland economy.
The United Kingdom economy, as all the indicators show, is now beginning to revive from the trough of recession. I would accept that recovery in Northern Ireland probably will be a little slower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. I would expect unemployment to stop at higher levels in Northern Ireland htan in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The reason for this is that 10 to 15 years ago Northern Ireland became the first area in the United Kingdom, and probably in Europe, to give considerable support for industry from public funds. That put Northern Ireland in a favourable position to compete for mobile international investment. That competitive


edge was eroded when the same support was given in other areas of the United Kingdom and Europe. There was not the same advantage to Northern Ireland and the general assessment is that there is less international mobile investment than there was before.
Areas such as South Korea, for example, which are new markets and have much lower labour costs than Northern Ireland, will probably attract the internationally mobile investment more easily than Northern Ireland will. A further factor is that as a result of the 1973 Middle East War and the increase in oil prices the cost of energy in Northern Ireland, where energy-supply is essentially oil-based, has gone up quite considerably. Mr. Shepherd of the South of Scotland Electricity Board has produced a report on the Northern Ireland electricity supply industry which I am hoping to publish in the course of the next few weeks.
The hon. Member for Newbury asked about the industrial strategy review. On the basis of documents available to us we shall have to propound a plan for the future economy of Northern Ireland, and that will necessitate calling in the Economic Council to consider these matters during the rest of the summer. I hope that we shall be in a position to announce policy decisions later in the year and the action we propose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West asked about housing and the reopening of blocked-up houses. A housing order is coming forward that will give my hon. Friend the Minister of State power to deal with this problem.
My hon. Friend also asked about the extension of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act to Northern Ireland. I must be careful about what I say here. I went into the matter last winter before appearing on a television programme. It would be very tempting to say that practically all the powers in the Act are already in existence in Northern Ireland legislation. However, to say that without qualification is a dangerous thing to do and therefore I will say only that the larger part of the powers conferred by the Act are already on the Northern Ireland statute book and can be used. It is a question of timing,

resources and money to make them avaliable.
My hon. Friend urged the use of publicly owned industry to solve Northern Ireland's problems. I yield to no one in support of publicly owned industry. I spent my working life in it before I came to this House, and it is one of the tools that will help to solve the Northern Ireland problem. But it is not as simple as that. I think that my hon. Friend was referring at one stage to Strathearn Audio. It had an advanced technology product and there is a lot that publicly owned industry can do to help a struggling firm in its early stages in that situation until the product gets off the ground. It is a function that often private industry cannot perform. However, the ideas must be good and the propositions reasonably viable. One cannot expect publicly owned activity to succeed just because it is publicly owned.
The hon. Member for Newbury asked about Short Bros. and Harland and the Rolls-Royce factory. The answer to his question is that the company was given the opportunity to take over the factory at Dundonald. I am to meet the trade unions next week to discuss the situation with them, and I can say no more about that now.
He asked about Harland and Wolff but, unfortunately, I had no notice that the subject was to be raised. There will be an opportunity to discuss the future of the firm on amendments to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill next week. That would be a good time to debate this subject which is a much more complex matter than the simple question that the hon. Member asked about Short Brothers and Harland. I hope the hon. Member, who asked some pertinent questions on this topic, will contain himself until next week.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the Minister of State be taking part in that debate next week, or will the subject be dealt with by the Secretary of State or Minister of State for Industry?

Mr. Moyle: Either the Secretary of State or I will reply to the debate on the Harland and Wolff amendments if present business arrangements are maintained. It is not entirely a matter for me.
The hon. Member for Londonderry made an excellent point about the vast sums of money being spent on leisure centres in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member pointed out the advantages of simple pitches with goal posts where lads and lasses could turn out and knock a ball about in the evening and enjoy themselves in simple fun.
The leisure centres that were started before I got to Northern Ireland have got away, but the others have been stopped. They are very fine for people living nearby. For instance, the Antrim leisure centre is a superb facility, but the further one moves away from it, the less one uses it, and for the money spent on these centres we could provide hundreds or even thousands of all-weather football pitches across the Province—perhaps even one on every housing estate—for the greater good of all the people.
I hope that the House will consider that I have answered all the major problems raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Abingdon asked about Harland and Wolff and I replied to his point in my answer to the hon. Member for Newbury. I was asked about accommodation for security forces. We have certain priorities for security expenditure in Northern Ireland, especially for the police. Army expenditure comes from the Ministery of Defence budget and I shall inform my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the interest shown in this debate and get an answer in that way to some observations and questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS)

9.13 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): I beg to move,
That the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th June, he approved.
The Order deals with a number of miscellaneous financial matters, and such legislation is required from time to time, generally about every two years. It raises limits for borrowing and expenditure on certain aspects of public life in Northern Ireland, particularly for a number of important capital programmes and other financial transactions. On this occasion, the Order raises such limits to cover expected expenditure up to March 1978 or thereabouts. Existing limits on expenditure will be met during the present financial year and provision must be made for the future.
Most of the services affected by the Order are outside the area of supply services—those for which funds are released by Appropriation Orders in each financial year. In this category are loans for the Housing Executive and loans from the Government Loans Fund.
For certain other services Parliament not only sets an overall limit through Orders such as the one now before the House, but also provides for the release and appropriation of funds through Appropriation Orders. Examples are roads and industrial development. For such services the present Order sets new overall limits only. It does not provide for the actual release of the cash at this moment.
The purpose of the various articles in the Order is as follows: Article 3(1) and Schedules 1 and 2 increase the statutory limit on issues from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund for certain categories of capital expenditure. These categories are expenditure on roads, where the present limit of £150 million is to be increased to £200 million; expenditure for industrial development, where the present limit of £425 million is to be increased to £550 million; and loans for agricultural development, where it is proposed to increase the limit from £13 million to £18 million.
Article 3(2) deals with a limit on issues from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to enable loans to be made to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The present limit of gross lending is £250 million. Additionally, there is a limit of £150 million which formerly applied to the Northern Ireland Housing Trust, which was superseded by the Housing Executive in October 1971.
Article 3(2) brings together these two limits, increases the combined limit to £550 million and applies it to the outstanding principal instead of the aggregate issues made from the Consolidated Fund. The change from a gross to a net limit gives a clearer impression of the true relation between the debtor and creditor and ensures that the situation is not distorted by borrowings that are only temporary. This change effectively increases by £245 million the borrowing powers of the Housing Executive.
Article 5 increases from £600 million to £700 million the limit on outstanding sums issued by way of Government loans. The Northern Ireland Government Loans Fund is the source provided by central Government for borrowing by district councils and by other public bodies in Northern Ireland. Loans are made from the fund at the same rate of interest as that charged by the Public Works Loan Board.
Article 6 enables the Department of Finance to borrow from the Northern Ireland Government Loans Fund for the purpose of operating loans pools transferred from former local authorities to the Department at the time of local government reorganisation. The Government Loans Fund was available to local authorities for the operation of the loans pools but under present legislation is not available to the Department for this purpose. Consequently the Department has to resort to borrowings in the outside market.
Article 7 deals with the borrowing powers of the Northern Ireland Electricity Service. A statutory limit of £350 million, which can be extended to £500 million by subordinate legislation, was set by the Electricity Supply (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. The effect of inflation and the financial needs of the capital programme at the new power station at Kilroot, County Antrim, now in course of


erection, now make it necessary to increase these limits on borrowing to £650 million and £750 million respectively. It is estimated that the existing upper limit of £500 million will be exhausted by 1977–78.
There are a number of other miscellaneous articles dealing with financial arrangements. If hon. Gentleman have points to raise on them we can, of course, discuss them, but I commend the Order to the House.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: It is regrettable that such important matters should be taken at this late hour on a Friday. It bears hard on those who serve so uncomplainingly in the House and it is inconvenient to hon. Members who take their constituency obligations seriously, particularly to our Northern Ireland colleagues who have a channel to cross, with all the vexations mentioned in the previous debate. That such business should, moreover, wait upon the debate upon the emoluments and finances of hon. Members might be thought to encourage some indifference, or even contempt, for the troubled Province, did we not know the almost frivolous incompetence with which the Lord President leads, if that is the word, the House of Commons. To be fair, the business managers have provided extra time, although the Leader of the House has not stayed to enjoy it.
The Minister of State complained earlier about the refusal of my hon. and right hon. Friends to pair. It is their right to pair or not to pair. If they refuse, as they have, it is the result of the behaviour of the Executive. Nevertheless, despite what the Minister of State said, the Opposition have made special arrangements for the pairing of Northern Ireland Ministers, and the hon. Gentleman should not ignore that to score a cheap point, as he thought, against my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), whose speech was wholly helpful and who was concerned, as I was, that the difficulties in the House between the main parties should not prevent a Minister's being on duty at Stormont. Or is it the case that the Secretary of State did not inform his hon. Friend the Minister of State of a position which I suppose Ministers would wish to continue and not put in jeopardy?

Mr. Moyle: I am perfectly well aware that the Secretary of State was paired for a night last week, but it is not just a question of one Minister being paired for a night in Stormont. There are five Ministers in the Northern Ireland Department all of whom have considerable departmental responsibilities and it is necessary for them to go out and help to govern the Province in that capacity. The problem is slightly wider than the one to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Of course, and the same argument applies to other Ministers who have responsibility at important international conferences, but we cannot go into that. The Minister of State was unfair in what he said about my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I hope that both hon. Gentlemen will leave the matter at that.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall certainly leave the matter there.
I wanted to refer to the Housing Executive, but I shall not do so because we had a lengthy debate on that subject in the Northern Ireland Committee. I shall concentrate my few remarks on the Order on the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and consider its fortunes since 1973 when it took over the functions, assets and liabilities of four separate undertakings.
In a Written Answer I was informed that a financial loss to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service in 1971–72 of £1·4 million rose to £22 million in 1975–76, despite heavy percentage increases in the average price per unit of electricity sold. It is true that part of the losses incurred are attributable to the national prices policy and not to the conduct of the affairs of the Electricity Service, and that the service was subject to compensation payments by the Department of Commerce.
We must, moreover, recognise that the generation of electricity is more expensive in Northern Ireland than it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is partly because a high proportion of generating plant in the Province is oil-fired. The new generating station at


Kilroot, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, will be oil-fired.
I recall in passing that Mr. Brian Faulkner in his day interested himself in the possibility of a nuclear power station. There were arguments on that which went both ways. Formerly, oil fuel was much cheaper, and one cannot complain that the Northern Ireland Electricity Service went for oil fuel, but today it is very dear.
Another reason for the high cost of electricity is the growth of industry and therefore of demand at a higher rate than in Great Britain. In 1949 consumption was only 724 million units. In 1974 it was 5,136 million units. This has meant an increase in expensive capital investment to meet rising demand, and capital costs and interest charges have both to be met.
Nevertheless, the consumer, the taxpayer and the House are entitled to some assurances about the cost effectiveness with which the amalgamated Electricity Service is run and to have some prediction from the Minister of prospects. It is to be hoped that Northern Ireland will not continue to be a depressed Province, but is there any danger of over-capacity? In the previous debate the Minister of State referred to a report. We shall await that with interest. But if there is anything that he can tell us in the interim, we shall be very glad to hear it.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I believe that we are limited to an hour and a half in this debate, unlike the previous debate. It may be that the full time will not be required either on this Order or on the subsequent Orders, unless we particularly intend to breach the record, which I think has not been breached since the time of Suez in 1956, by sitting on a Saturday.
As the Minister of State pointed out, unlike the previous Order, that which is now before the House does not actually release money, but it nevertheless can provide a convenient peg to which to attach the scrutiny of capital developments in one direction or another. Following the statement of the Secretary of State on 2nd July, it is clear that we are to develop a series of new opportunities of investigating in Select Com-

and otherwise the capital investment in the Province and, therefore, in future it will probably be wisest if, following the precedent of the previous order, by agreement we use this Order, whenever it comes up, for concentrating on and having a proper debate on one particular aspect of capital development, because clearly we shall have this Order not once a year but once every other year or so.
Incidentally, it is right that this should be the case, because although these Orders do not actually release money, it is proper that the amount of capital which is being authorised should be subjected to scrutiny at fairly frequent intervals. It used to be an old adage of the Treasury, which certainly is verified in domestic life, that there is an advantage in keeping a Department short of cash. I do not think that we should put it quite in that way in modern times. Nevertheless, it would be quite wrong that a period of years for which there was ample capital authorisation—an ample limit—should stretch before the various programmes. The period of one to two years which the successive extensions provide is probably the right period.
Consequently, I want to avail myself of the opportunity to ask the Minister of State to clear up only two detailed points in the parts of the Order to which he did not specifically refer. One is Article 9 and the immediately following articles, which enable a rate of interest to be determined by an Order made by the Department of Finance and for the Department of Commerce, with the approval of the Department of Finance, to waive additional interest in such cases as it thinks fit.
I take it that this Order would be an administrative Order and not even a statutory rule, still less a prayable Order. Nevertheless, it would be of interest if the Minister of State would indicate the nature of the Order by which the Department will determine the rate of interest. This is not merely technical, because clearly the rate of interest which is determined has an influence upon the operations of the recipients of the loan and it would be possible for the Department to prescribe either an unduly low or an unduly high rate of interest. Therefore, it is desirable to know whether the


decisions embodied in such an Order would in any way be debatable.
My second query relates to Article 14 which concerns an increase in fees for registration under the arrangements of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. The explanatory document which has been supplied to hon. Members states that the present fees were set in 1957 and that the proposed increase,
although trebling the present fee",
only achieves approximately half of the cost of the service.
My query relates to the statement that the proposed increase only trebles the present fee. The increase is from one-third of 1 per cent. to 1 per cent. of the net annual value of the premises. If it was one-third of 1 per cent. of the net annual value of the premises on the old valuation list, I should have thought that 1 per cent. on the new valuation list would be considerably more than three times the previous amount.
I do not think that my hon. Friends and I would think it right that the fee should do other than cover the full costs of the work of registration. That would appear to be reasonable. Perhaps, therefore, either now or subsequently the Minister of State could clear up the query which is raised by the explanatory note on Article 14.

9.31 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to raise one point with the Minister on Article 12 concerning arrears of loans made to harbour authorities. We have heard from time to time—indeed, I heard at the beginning of the week—of a grant from the EEC towards certain harbours in Northern Ireland, two of which are in my constituency, one on Rathlin Island and another in Larne. Are these grants from the EEC in addition to the money allocated to various works in Northern Ireland? It seems to me that the principle of additionality might be called into question.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: Unfortunately, it is not sufficiently early in the day to do full justice to this Order.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked about Northern Ireland electricity services. Detailed discussion must await the publica-

tion of the Shepherd Report, which I hope will not be too long delayed, and its preliminary consideration by the Economic Council.
The hon. Member touched on a number of pertinent points connected with the industry. It is essentially oil based, and oil prices have risen considerably. Some of the losses in the past have been due to deliberate Government policies to hold the cost of living in the aftermath of the 1973 war and the Middle East oil crisis.
The other point is that the electricity supply industry these days is above all an industry in which the economies of scale apply, and in international terms the Northern Ireland market is not very large. This also leads to problems. It is very easy either to over-provide or under-provide, and these are matters to which the Province will have to turn its mind in the immediate future, because power costs are an important ingredient in all forms of industrial activity these days. I mentioned in my earlier speech that the price of energy in Northern Ireland was one of those aspects of the situation that were giving the Government concern in relation to the future of the economy of the Province.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) put two questions to me. I can confirm his suspicion in respect of the Order. It is the sort of Order which would be laid before a Northern Ireland Assembly but not an Order such as would be laid before the House of Commons at Westminster. On his second question, I am afraid that the complexities are such that I must write to him to give a proper answer.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked about EEC grants. EEC grants fall into two categories. Grants to support the less well off regions of the European Economic Community are paid into the central Treasury of the appropriate member country and serve to support that country's general regional policy in these matters. However, in the case of grants for infrastructure purposes, which would include harbours, money is made available directly from Brussels to the appropriate region of the member country. Therefore, in respect of harbours in Northern Ireland we shall have the direct benefit of EEC money for the


improvement of those harbours. I hope that that clarifies the matter for the hon. Gentleman.
That deals with what hon. Members have said and I commend the Order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (CIVIL SERVICE)

9.36 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): I beg to move,
That the Department of the Civil Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.
In his reply on 8th June last to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), my right hon. Friend said that he had decided to create the Civil Service management division of the Department of Finance as an independent Department of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and the Order gives effect to that decision. At present, the management and control of the Northern Ireland Civil Service is vested in the Department of Finance and is exercised through its Civil Service management division. The last Permanent Secretary of the Department of Finance was also head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service but, following his retirement on 30th June, the two functions of finance and Civil Service management have been separated. The present head of the Civil Service is no longer also head of the Department of Finance.
The head of the Civil Service in responsible to the Secretary of State for the co-ordination of policies and programmes of all Northern Ireland Departments and for advising him on these matters, including the allocation of resources. Also, he continues to be answerable to the Secretary of State for the direction and management of the Civil Service, and especially for recommendations on top appointments. In these circumstances, it is structurally and administratively appropriate for the present Civil Service management division of the Department of Finance to become an independent Department.
Article 3 provides for the establishment and title of the new Department. It makes provision for the distribution of its business, its style and seal and similar matters. Article 4 constitutes the new Department as the Department for the general management and control of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and substitutes it for the Department of Finance in the Civil Service Order (Northern


Ireland) 1975, which deals with the making of regulations and the giving of directions about employment in the Civil Service. Further, it allows for transfer of other functions to the new Department by subordinate legislation, and we shall be examining what specific functions in regard to personnel should be transferred.
Article 5 extends the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner to the new Department and applies the provisions of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, which make it unlawful for a Department to discriminate or to require the taking of oaths in connection with appointments.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: We should like to be convinced of the necessity of the Order. Why, precisely is a new department needed? I believe that the Minister of State mentioned 1,200 civil servants earlier this evening. Why is it necessary to upset the existing arrangements? Will any extra cost be involved at a time when the cuts announced yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if applied equally, will bite deeper into Northern Ireland than elsewhere? Is it really necessary to do this? What advantages will there be?
There seems to be a sort of itch for reorganising departments. For example, the old Ministry of Development was divided into the Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning and the Department of the Environment. Then the two were brought together again under the title of the Department of the Environment. The departmental structure is rather like an earthworm which is severed by a spade and which joins itself together. Now we have a Civil Service Department. What is it all about? Is it really necessary? Even an administrative upheaval is a costly and disturbing matter. Is it fair to the civil servants?
On behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition I pay tribute to the Northern Ireland and United Kingdom civil servants, and to the whole public service of the Province. The House and the country should be grateful for their integrity, skill, courage and devotion. Many of them live dangerously and they bear their casualties. Those who knew Judith Cook, however slightly, will realise that not only her

family and friends but her country, in whose service she died, have suffered a grievous loss.
We welcomed the appointment of Mr. Brian Cubbon and hope that the Minister of State can tell us of his progress. To all who suffer from terrorist violence we extend our respectful sympathy.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I share the somewhat critical inquisitiveness that has been voiced by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). I have endeavoured to read the order in the light of Column 814 of Hansard, now almost miraculously available for 2nd July 1976, which contains that important State document—namely the speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in introducing the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1976.
I should like to be assured that I have understood what is going on. It appears that there are now to be three senior positions instead of one. Previously there was a Department of Finance, within which there was the Civil Service Management Division. Now there is to be the Department of Finance and the Department of the Civil Service, two separate Departments with their own heads. In addition, there is to be the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. He is a much more exalted character who is a kind of chief of staff to the Secretary of State. We were sorry not to hear the Secretary of State introducing the Order in his own person, although we heard some echoes of it in the unamended script.
Is it necessary—here I echo the hon. Member for Epping Forest—to multiply one head of department into three heads of department? No doubt they will all be different grades, but it is a distinct proliferation. We wish to be more sure than at present that we shall get that much additional efficiency from the multiplication.
Another doubt assails one. The head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service is not to be the head of the Department of the Civil Service but a distinct person altogether. He is to be a sort of factotum to the Secretary of State. He will advise him on all sorts of matters and co-ordinate all sorts of things, but does he have a Department? I believe that he


has a Department, too, so there are three Departments. [Interruption.] Evidently I have it wrong. I shall try again. There is to be a Department of Finance, with a head. Then there is to be a Department of the Civil Service, which has its own head. But there is also to be the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.

Mr. Moyle: The head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service will also be head of the Civil Service Management Department. I am sorry if I did not make that clear.

Mr. Powell: The Minister has cleared up a difficulty which arose out of the text of the Secretary of State's speech. All that we have is an increase of 200 per cent., not 300 per cent., in the number of heads of departments. The head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service is freed from his financial responsibilities but he has the use of his Department of the Civil Service, which presumably is primarily a managerial and personnel department, to assist him in his much more exalted position of chef de cabinet. What worries me still is whether the Department of the Civil Service, which is a personnel and management department, is suitable for assisting the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service in working directly to the Secretary of State,
to co-ordinate the activities of all the Northern Ireland Departments and the allocation of resources amongst them."—[Official Report, 2nd July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 814.]
I fear that the chef de cabinet will acquire a cabinet—not in one of the senses of that French word—and that we shall see on a small scale in Northern Ireland what we have unfortunately seen in Whitehall, where the desire for coordination under the Prime Minister has led to the building up of an ever-growing structure parallel with the regular Civil Service for the purpose of assisting the co-ordinators and those who work directly to the Prime Minister.
I fear that the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, wearing his grander hat of general co-ordinator and adviser-in-chief to the Secretary of State, will find that he requires his own little show, and that his own little show will presently cease to be all that little. There are, therefore, Parkinsonian overtones in this arrangement.
I must say—and I suppose that I am betraying all the evidences of Anno Domini in saying it—that there was a great deal to be said for the old arrangement in the Civil Service whereby the head of the Treasury was also the head of the Civil Service and discharged something of this co-ordinating and advisory relationship in regard to the Prime Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury, and to the Cabinet as well as to the Second Lord of the Treasury.
I fear that we are in Northern Ireland, although on a smaller scale, going down the same fissiparous road. I do not believe that one gets the same benefits from this kind of division as one could get from the concentration of function which used to be exemplified by the old head of the Civil Service before 1956 in this country. I share the doubts that I detected in the speech of the hon. Member for Epping Forest.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I, too, am concerned about the cost of this operation. I risked incurring some unpopularity in South Antrim by going out of my way to help the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that he will keep a keen eye on expenditure.
I do not have the benefit of the experience possessed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in the workings of the Civil Service machinery, but I should like to ask whether this eventually will develop into the equivalent of the Cabinet Office. What concerns me is what the relationship is to be with the Northern Ireland Office in the immediate future. Is there not a danger that friction might be created or might develop between the two? Are we not to some extent providing yet another layer and compounding the difficulties to which some of us drew attention? Indeed, the Minister admitted that there was some difficulty in the present administration involving two layers in the Northern Ireland Office separated from the Northern Irish Civil Service.
Finally, does Article 3(3) imply that if the Government of Northern Ireland were re-established, there would then be a new ministerial post created by this Order? If that were to happen, what would its relationship be to whoever


might be the chief executive in Northern Ireland, or whatever he might be called in the new structure?

9.52 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with the views that have already been expressed on this Order. I also wish to ask the Minister whether he is aware of newspaper reports in Northern Ireland about the elevation of the pay structure, with more travel allowances and all the rest of it, in respect of English civil servants serving in Northern Ireland? I do not know what truth there is in those reports, but certain newspapers in Northern Ireland have carried banner headlines to that effect. Can he say from where the Civil Service of Northern Ireland is to recruit these personnel? Are they to be recruited from various Departments or from the Northern Ireland Office? Furthermore, what will be the situation in regard to their payments and allowances?

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: I am grateful to hon. Members for articulating in such succinct fashion, their worries about the reorganisation proposed in this Order. It gives me the opportunity to give a certain amount of reassurance.
First, there will be a splitting of an existing department. It is not, other than in name, the creation of a new department. Therefore, the question of recruiting new people outside the Northern Irish Civil Service does not arise. The civil servants who will man the Civil Service Management Department are already in the Civil Service Management Division. The people who will man the newly formed Department of Finance are already in that department. It does not mean the creation of any more senior Civil Service posts since there has already been a head of the Finance Department, a head of the Civil Service Management Division and a head of the Northern Irish Civil Service. What will happen is that their functions will be rearranged.
The basic aim of the exercise is to free the head of the Northern Irish Civil Service for functions of co-ordination and to ensure that people can concentrate on a particular task rather than possibly to have regard to other aspects of departmental work. There are no costs or extra

civil servants involved. It is a rearrangement of functions.
If I may deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), if there were a Northern Ireland Executive created under some future arrangement for devolved Government, what they then did about creating Ministers and executive positions in a reorganised Department would be en-entirely a matter for them, as the present arrangement has been a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has created different arrangements from those which existed under the power-sharing Executive.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the hon. Gentleman correct in saying that it would be a matter for any new executive to decide on the arrangements? Was it not a fact that the old Stormont Parliament, when it wished to switch around and amalgamate departments, had to come back to this House for authority?

Mr. Moyle: It would certainly be a matter for the local Executive to recommend, anyway. It would take powerful argument to reject proposals which people on the ground thought were best for the administration of the Province.
I was pleased to hear the high compliments paid to the Northern Ireland Civil Service by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). I wish to reciprocate all the compliments which he paid. He also raised the question of Judith Cook and Brian Cubbon, who were the civil servants involved in Wednesday morning's bomb attack. Judith Cook was killed, and her loss is a source of great sorrow to all those in the Northern Ireland Office. She was not in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. She was a United Kingdom civil servant, as is Brian Cubbon. The latest information is that Brian Cubbon is not as seriously injured as I at one time thought, although he will certainly be out of action for a long time.
Mr. Cubbon has had a long association with Northern Ireland problems. When the Prime Minister took an interest as Home Secretary in the Northern Ireland situation, Mr. Cubbon was his Private Secretary. We all very much regret what has happened to Brian Cubbon, and I


am sure we would all want to send our best wishes to him for a speedy recovery.
The 1,200 civil servants of whom I spoke are members of the Northern Ireland Office, which is a United Kingdom Civil Service office. The Northern Ireland Civil Service, whose Finance Department we have been considering this evening, is a much larger organisation. Offhand, I cannot say how large, but I can say that the Department of Health and Social Security in Northern Ireland, of which I was once head, had at that stage a force of 53,000 people, with area health and social service boards involved in its operations.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I included in my tribute both United Kingdom and Northern Ireland civil servants. Would it not have been helpful if the Explanatory Note had said that there would be no cost incurred as a result of these proposals?

Mr. Moyle: I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Department of the Civil Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (POISONS)

9.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I beg to move,
That the Poisons (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): It might be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss the Poisons (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. I understand that both are consolidation measures.

Mr. Dunn: The purpose of these Orders is mainly to consolidate the legislation relating to pharmacy and to poisons in Northern Ireland. The comparable legislation in Great Britain is already conveniently contained in two Acts, the Pharmacy Act 1954 and the Poisons Act 1972.
At present the pharmacy and poisons legislation in Northern Ireland is contained in four Acts which have been subject to substantial amendment over the years and are due to be further amended when Part III of the Medicines Act 1968 —a United Kingdom Act—is brought into operation. The principal effect of the two Orders is to omit superseded provisions and to incorporate insertions and amendments which have been made to the Acts from time to time, including those due to be made under the Medicines Act later this year.
I will deal first with the Pharmacy Order. Part I of the Order is introductory. and Part II provides for the continuation of the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland and of its council. Since their establishment some 50 years ago, these bodies have been successful in maintaining and raising the already high standards of their profession in Northern Ireland and in ensuring that the practice of pharmacy remains responsive to advances in knowledge and to changing conditions. Part III continues provisions relating to the registration of pharmaceutical chemists and druggists, and Part IV continues the arrangements for disciplinary proceedings within the profession.
As I have said, the main purpose of the Order is to consolidate Northern Ireland legislation. However, the Order also contains a number of amendments aimed at clarifying and updating the legislation. For example, under the current legislation the practical training period required for pre-August 1967 pharmaceutical students is two years, whilst for post-August 1967 students it is one year. In order to provide flexibility, Article 8(2) of the Order requires that the person
has undergone such a course of practical training as may be prescribed".
This provision will enable the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society, subject to the approval of the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services, to prescribe both the duration and content of the practical training required before registration.
In addition, Article 12 requires the registers of pharmaceutical chemists, druggists and students to be published annually, rather than in January each year, in order to include in the same publication the register of pharmacy premises maintained under the Medicines Act.
It is made clear in Schedules 1 and 2 that the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society may elect suitable members or associates of the Society as Fellows of the Society, and that the president and vice-president may be elected by the council.
The Order was published as a proposal and drew no substantial comments at that stage from interested bodies.
I turn now to the Poisons (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. Part I is introductory, and includes a definition if the new term "non-medicinal poison", which is used to describe the poisons which will be retained on the Poisons List when medicinal products have been removed from that list and brought under control through machinery provided by the Medicines Act 1968.
Part II of the Order continues the provisions relating to the constitution and duties of the Poisons Board. The board will advise the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services on the substances which are to be treated as non-medicinal poisons and on such other matters as from time to time may

be referred to it by the Department of Health and Social Services.
Part III of the Order sets out in consolidated form the controls on the sale of non-medicinal poisons. This part of the Order also continues the arrangements for the registration by district councils of persons who are permitted to sell certain non-medicinal poisons, Part IV of the Order contains provisions concerning the sale of methylated spirits and ether which were omitted from the Licensing Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.
As I have said, the Order is mainly a consolidating measure. However, it also includes a few amendments. For example, the amounts of certain fines which have not been changed for over 20 years are now increased.
Schedule 1 changes the method of appointment of the Poisons Board. At present, the members of the board are appointed by various bodies, with the result that appointments can operate from a variety of dates. The Order now provides that the board will be constituted in the same way as other advisory bodies. The change is purely procedural, as appointments will be made only after full consultation. Schedule 3 to the Order will permit the sale of methylated spirits between certain hours at the weekends.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn attention to the two Orders on the grounds that their purport requires elucidation. Both Orders, although primarily measures of consolidation, contain a number of amendments. These are described in the explanatory notes at the end of the Orders as minor amendments. The Joint Committee has expressed the view that this is a misleading description. Differences of opinion may of course arise as to the importance to be attached to particular amendments, but it is my view and that of my legal advisers that in the overall context of the pharmacy and poisons code of legislation which is consolidated in the two Orders the amendments are of minor significance.
Attention was drawn to them in the explanatory documents which were issued to interested organisations with the draft Orders when they were first published on a consultative basis as proposals for legislation. As I have already indicated.


there was little response from interested bodies and this would seem to confirm the view that the amendments are not considered to be major matters.
A list of the changes in question is to be found in the memorandum supplied by the Northern Ireland Office to the Committee, which is appended to the Committee's report. However, in view of the Committee's opinion, it is proposed to delete the word "minor" where it now appears in the explanatory notes, which I hope will satisfy the House.
In conclusion, the consolidation which these Orders undertake will prove useful to all concerned with the legislation, and I commend the Orders to the House.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If I may coin an expression, this is not entirely a minor matter. The Under-Secretary was right to take the bull by the horns and deal with the report of the Joint Select Committee. The position was that this motion was on the Order Paper today, and there appeared, for the first time, a reference to the report of 20th July of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. After an initial hesitation the Vote Office made reproduced copies —not printed ones—of that report available to hon. Members.
It is not entirely satisfactory that an Order should be considered on the first day on which the report of the Joint Committee appears and is made available to hon. Members. They should have an opportunity to read the report, to compare it with the Order, and to decide their attitude. The Government should avoid —it is bad practice—taking Orders when the report of the Joint Committee referring to them is available only on the day on which those Orders are taken.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary accepted, with some departmental defence, the criticism of the Committee. That is important, because my hon. Friends have not been able to give full scrutiny to all these Orders and when the explanatory memorandum confesses that a measure is consolidating, one tends to follow the usual procedure that a consolidating measure does not attract debate even when the fact that they are consolidating is qualified by reference to "minor amendments".
In confess that I regarded these two Orders as consolidating. It is of no little importance that the existence of amendments means that the Orders are not wholly consolidating and that this has been under-emphasised rather than over-emphasised in the memorandum. So I think this has been a useful event and I hope that lessons will be drawn from it in future.
I have only one question to put to the Under-Secretary upon the purport of the pharmacy Order, and it refers to the point to which attention was drawn in the Joint Committee's report, which is that the Department is to be responsible for certain functions which under the existing legislation are conferred on the "head of the Department". Hon. Members have become familiar with the fact that by virtue of Schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 we are aware that when we read "head of the Department" in an Order we are to substitute for it "Secretary of State".
When we have endeavoured to write "Secretary of State" into statutes and Bills in replacement for the words "head of the Department", we have been told that it is not necessary and that all we have to do is to look up the 1974 Act where anyone will see that "head of the Department" really means "Secretary of State". But here we find that for "head of the Department" is to be substituted not "Secretary of State" but "the Department", meaning the Department itself. Sure enough, in the interpretation article "the Department" is defined as the Department of Health and Social Security.
I am at a loss to understand why this is, because it is clearly not a responsibility ever to be taken by a Department. Where certain functions are allocated to the Treasury, hon. Members are generally aware that "Treasury' is a shortened expression for "Lords Commissioners of the Treasury", who are Ministers and who bear ministerial responsibility. But here we appear to have a Department being put in the place of an executive head of Department who under the 1973 Act would have been responsible to the Assembly or, alternatively, put in the place of the Secretary of State, who would be responsible to this House.
I do not know whether I have bowled the Under-Secretary a fast one. If I have


bowled him an unduly fast one, I am sure that he will be able to take refuge in the promise of providing information on a subsequent occasion. From the visible signs it may be that help is arriving, although maybe the assistance is not so wholly and intelligibly clear as to enable the Under-Secretary, with full confidence and conviction, to answer my question from the Dispatch Box. So I offer him an alternative either of reading to the House the message that has reached him or, perhaps even preferably, taking time to consider the matter and communicating subsequently.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: Sometimes it is wise to obey the customs of the House. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) mentioned my presence in another and earlier capacity, and I well recall as a Lords Commissioner of the Treasury sitting on this Bench for long hours following debates on Northern Ireland and taking particular note of those who participated in them. I always determined that I would never trespass if I could possibly help it against the procedural practices of the House and that I would always obey its customs. That is why I concluded that the Joint Committee report was acknowledged and that was why the amendment was accepted without reservation.
The right hon. Gentleman was correct. He has bowled me a fast one. Perhaps I can give him an answer off the top of my head. It may be that in the terminology used in the Order the custom and practice of the Northern Ireland statute has been followed. It may be that in order to protect that situation there has been no change in the terminology of the presentation. If so, that would indicate that the word "head" means the Secretary of State, or those whom he appoints to discharge functions on his behalf.
However, it may be wise for me to accept the advice of the right hon. Member for Down, South and look at the matter very carefully before sending him a detailed reply.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Poisons (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (PHARMACY)

Resolved
That the Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June be approved.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE

Motion made and Question proposed.
That Standing Order No. 72A (Northern Ireland Committee) be amended as follows: Line 23, leave out 'on not more than four days in a Session'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

10.16 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is disappointing, though I am glad on his account, that the Lord President is not present—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I should explain to the right hon. Gentleman that this motion is not debatable, although it can be objected to.

Mr. Powell: I do not wish to object to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.), the Standing Committee considering Commission Documents Nos. R/2688/1/75 and R/2689/1/75 relating to Tax Exemptions shall be able to sit for up to two and a half hours after the commencement of its proceedings.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Orders of the Day — LAND DEVELOPMENT (COMPENSATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: I do not. wish to detain the House unnecessarily at this late hour, but the matter that I wish to raise is important to individual rights and personal freedom. I wish to,


speak about the procedure relating to compensation for development land and the unfair and unsatisfactory way in which it is administered. It concerns particularly the Land Compensation Act 1973, the White Paper "Development and Compensation—Putting People First" and the Land Compensation Code entitled "Your Home and Compulsory Purchase".
I maintain that in the case that I am raising the objectives of these measures have not been reached. I refer to the River Mole flood alleviation scheme. This secheme was introduced after the disastrous floods in my constituency in 1968 along the River Mole, the River Thames and the River Ember. They were almost repeated and a disaster only narrowly avoided in October 1974.
The flood alleviation scheme was introduced through the efforts of my predecessor and myself and as a result of great pressure from constituents after the floods. I am very much in favour of the scheme, because it is a much-needed measure to prevent a similar disaster.
The scheme was the subject of the last Adjournment debate that I initiated and I should like tonight to examine the other side of the coin—the injury to those victims who may be subject to what is called desirable developments. Although the White Paper to which I referred was introduced by a Conservative Government, I believe that its provisions are supported by the present Government.
The White Paper makes several important points. There is to be a "new approach" on the quality of everyday life, and it adds:
… a balance must constantly be struck between the overriding duty of the State to ensure that essential developments are undertaken for the benefit of the whole community and the no less compelling need to protect the interests of those whose personal rights or private property may be injured in the process.
It adds:
This dilemma is at the heart of contemporary political debate. Sometimes the State is seen as playing the role of a juggernaut, putting roads before homes, riding rough shod over the rights of individual citizens.
It continues:
It is a conflict of right with right—the public's undoubted right to have a new road

or school or waterworks and the private person's right to enjoy his home and garden. undisturbed.
The opening part, which sets out the purpose of the White Paper, concludes:
The Government believe the time has come when all concerned with development must aim to achieve a better balance between provision for the community as a whole and the mitigation of harmful effects on the individual citizen. In recent years this balance in too many cases has been tipped again the interests of the individual. A better deal is now required for those who suffer from desirable community developments.
I am certainly not unmindful of the expense of compensation where houses and land have to be taken for development purposes. Indeed, the White Paper says that the measures it foreshadows will mean that some kinds of development will cost more. That, of course, we all must accept. But I believe that proper compensation for individuals should not be sacrificed to the particular economic expediency of the day. We are going through a difficult time in the economic climate, but that does not undermine the principle that the individual must get proper compensation for what he or she will lose.
In a nutshell, my constituent, Miss K. Lechner, has her home on the banks of the River Ember and it has been there for 33 years. To her it is not just a bungalow; it is Home Sweet Home. Miss Lechner has her every comfort and a nice garden, and there she is perfectly content and happy. But this particular property is required by the Thames Water Authority for the flood alleviation scheme. That means taking the whole of this property.
One of the decisions that I contest is that no compensation is being given for her home but only for the land on which it stands, and that land comprises about 550 square yards. The reason why no compensation is being given to her for her home is that many years ago, in 1951, her home was graded as "unsuitable for human habitation."
The story is that Miss Lechner, who is an elderly lady, acquired this 560 square yards' plot in 1943. Her intention was to build a bungalow, but that was not approved by the local authority because of the danger of flood. She then raised the level by six feet, but that was not


approved because the carriageway, the short lane leading to the house, was only eight feet wide. There was a caravan standing on the site and she replaced it by a larger caravan and rested it on brick pillars. She added two extensions. One was a small kitchen and the other was a bedroom and a bathroom and this home, which then resembled a bungalow, had all the amenities of water, electricity, telephone and so on. The interior was covered with sheet aluminium, and painted, and the whole effect is very satisfactory. A glass verandah was added, brick steps and a patio. Miss Lechner also revetted the river wall and built a wall on the edge of the river 70 ft. long.
In 1951 after she had lived there for seven years undisturbed, the local authority brought into effect the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and served an enforcement notice on her to quit because it was said that her home was unfit for human habitation. Following that, councillors from the local authority visited her home and disputed the order. They considered that her house and grounds were in apple-pie order, and in 1954 consent was granted for her to remain there for as long as she wished or for the rest of her life.
After she had lived there for 32 years, during which time there had been no inspection by council officers, the 1968 floods came, a new channel was required 110 feet wide, and there was a public inquiry. An alternative course was proposed, but it was turned down.
The Land Compensation Act 1973 was brought into effect by the acquiring authority, the Thames Water Authority, which then became legally responsible for compensation but, because many years ago the house had been graded as unsuitable, the authority said that it was unable to pay compensation for her home, only for the land. The compensation offered was a paltry £6,000. Yet, the Land Compensation Act is supposed to tip the balance in favour of the individual who is threatened by such desirable developments.
I shall run over what I consider to be the unfair aspects of this case. First, Miss Lechner is not to be compensated for her home, only for the plot of land on which it stands. The lack of a home on the land obviously detracts from that value. An independent surveyor 10 years ago

estimated the worth of the property as £19,000. That, perhaps, was putting it a little on the high side.
The second unfair aspect is that, if the house is considered to be unsuitable, it is wrong that Miss Lechner should have been allowed to remain in an unsuitable house for 33 years. Council officials said that that was done as a favour, but I suggest that councils do not perform actions as favours. They perform them as duties or they do not perform them at all.
During the 33 years there was no inspection by officers of the council, no sanitary notice was served and now the home, although not unsuitable enough for Miss Lechner to be evicted during the whole period of 33 years, is not suitable enough to enable her to receive compensation. The authorities concerned cannot have it both ways. Miss Lechner falls between two stools.
The third unfair aspect is that the Thames Water Authority has after all perhaps been generous because it has offered her rent-free accommodation—which the authority would purchase for £16,000—for the rest of her life. But that is a lower level of compensation than would be payable for the home she occupies. Miss Lechner has steadfastly refused to be beholden to anyone. She wants to be independent, to stay independent and to live in her own home, not as the tenant of anyone else. In any case, with the outgoings on rates, the income from the £4,000 which the authority would offer in these circumstances would be hardly enough to maintain Miss Lechner in a much larger house where expenses would probably be twice as great as they are at present where she is able to live comfortably.
The fourth unfair aspect is that it can be argued that the unfitness order was attached to Miss Lechner's right to stay voluntarily for the rest of her life in her home, but with compulsory purchase she is now forced to go involuntarily, and the whole basis of the argument is therefore changed. It is unfair that an unfitness order should still attach and carry with it the effective liquidation of Miss Lechner's home and its value.
The law in this respect says that compensation shall be for the market value


of a home. Miss Lechner's home is parcularly well cherished and cared for and some intrinsic value should attach to the owner or occupier of such a home and not just the market value. After all, the value to the owner must be enhanced when it is taken from a person involuntarily as compared with when it is given up voluntarily and put on the market by free will.
The sixth aspect which I consider to be unfair is that Miss Lechner is offered less compensation if she is re-housed by the authority—that is, the compensation will drop from £6,000 to £4,000. The Minister will realise that this is not in accordance with the law, and the rule on it is contained in the publication "Your Home and Compulsory Purchase" page 10, paragraph 46, where it says:
Is it true that my compensation might be reduced if I accept rehousing?
The answer is this:
No. It is illegal for an authority to reduce on this account the amount of any compensation to which you have a right or the amount of any other payment such as home loss payment, well-maintained payment, or disturbance payment.
Therefore, I consider that the authority is acting wrongly and against the law.
In conclusion, the main point is that the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973, the White Paper "Putting People First", and the Land Compensation Code seem to be honoured more in the letter than in the spirit, and it is clear that the spirit of the Act is being ridden over roughshod by the apparatus of the State. It is not my object to raise expectations which cannot be fulfilled. The procedures which have taken place have been in accordance not with "Putting People First" but, I suggest, with putting people last.
I wish to pay a tribute to Miss Lechner as an individualist who does not wish to be beholden to anyone, who provides for herself, who prizes her independence above all else and who, although she has suffered much mental anguish, has shown great courage and determination in the long years in which she has suffered some degree of harassment over the subject of her home. I believe that she personifies the claim that the Englishman's home is his castle, and I wish that we had more like her. I appeal for generosity in the settlement of this case.

10.34 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) on raising a very important issue —the relationship between the rights of the individual to enjoy his property undisturbed and the needs of public authorities to carry out development for the community as a whole. I particularly appreciated the sympathetic and sensitive way in which the hon. Gentleman presented his constituent's case. I should like to refer to that later, but to begin with, I want to deal with the general issues, as did the hon. Gentleman.
The issues involved were precisely set out in the White Paper "Development and Compensation—Putting People First", published in 1972. It is from this document that the hon. Gentleman has quoted, and it has incorporated the results of wide-ranging reviews of the policies adopted by authorities undertaking public works, notably highways, and the provisions of the compensation code. New powers were subsequently introduced in the Land Compensation Act 1973 to enable those authorities to do more to mitigate the disruption they cause and to improve and extend the code to secure further the private rights and interests of the individual. In what is a difficult and complex field, full of special cases, this was a major attempt to strike a better balance between individual and community needs.
I shall not weary hon. Members by reciting the list of improvements made in the 1973 Act. They were, however, substantial, and they involved the commitment of sizeable extra public funds. Many people have benefited as a result, though we can never avoid all of the hard cases.
The hon. Member has spoken about the case of a constituent. People whose homes are threatened or taken for public developments frequently object strongly to the intrusion into their way of life. They suffer a measure of disturbance and distress which is over and above any strict monetary value of their loss. The hon. Gentleman emphasised this point and made it particularly well.
Of course, this is not always the case. People are sometimes only too pleased to be moved from sub-standard housing


due for redevelopment into modern homes. These are the cases we do not hear about. Nevertheless, there is the likelihood of substantial distress for people pulling up roots firmly put down, and this is recognised in the 1973 Act in so far as special home loss payments, extra to any compensation sum, are provided for. It is estimated that these payments amount to some £22 million a year. I mention this to indicate the practical application of the new powers introduced in 1973.
Before turning to deal with the detail of the points raised, I should perhaps first outline the basis of compensation and other benefits payable where people's homes and land are acquired by compulsory purchase. I do not think there can be any argument that public authorities need compulsory purchase powers if they are to be able to carry out their statutory duties in the public interest, but there are, of course, safeguards for the individual owner in that if he objects, the issues involved are aired at a public inquiry and the appropriate Secretary of State is required to take any objections into account in deciding whether compulsory purchase should be authorised. Basically, it is a question of deciding whether the needs of the acquiring authority, acting in the public interests, outweigh the interests of the owner who wishes to keep his land. But the question of compensation is, and has always been, a separate issue and does not enter into the case for or against compulsory purchase.
In the majority of cases, compensation is assessed, as the hon. Gentleman said, on market value—that is, the amount which the property might be expected to realise if sold by a willing seller on the open market. In addition, the acquiring authority is obliged to pay the proper legal costs and, usually, disturbance compensation for other reasonable expenses and losses which the person has to incur as a result of the compulsory purchase. Ths includes the cost of altering soft furnishings and movable fixtures and fittings to fit them to the new home, telephone reconnection charges, and so on. Then, as I have previously mentioned, if the person has lived in the house for five years before being displaced, there is entitlement to a home loss payment of three times rateable value

with a minimum of £150 and a maximum of £1,500.
There are other obligations on authorities. Under the 1973 Act, local housing authorities are required to ensure that any person displaced by public action is satisfactorily rehoused. This might mean providing suitable alternative accommodation available on reasonable terms. Alternatively, the authority may help with the provision of a mortgage, or in the case of the older person or those with low earnings, make interest-only mortgage advances repayable on maturity. There are also provisions for advance payment of compensation.
In essence, the compensation code is intended to give people the open market value for the actual interest acquired, plus their additional necessary expenses. The only significant exception to the market value basis applies to unfit dwellings, where site only value is applicable. But even here supplementary payments to owner-occupiers will normally bring the compensation up to market value.
I have explained these arrangements at some length to demonstrate the scope of the code and the significance in real terms of the 1973 Act extensions. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) on Second Reading of the Land Compensation Bill described the provisions as the
most extensive reforms of the law of compensation in favour of the individual that have been put before Parliament for more than a century".—[Official Report, 27th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 152.]
I would not dissent from that view, and there is no evidence to suggest that these provisions are not working as intended.
Against that background I shall try to respond as helpfully as I can to the hon. Member's comments about Miss Lechner's circumstances. I emphasise, however, that that case concerns the proposed acquisition of land by the Thames Water Authority for the River Mole flood alleviation scheme, which the hon. Gentleman supports. This is a responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is not responsible for either the scheme or the proposed acquisition.
I understand, however, that the recent correspondence has endeavoured to set


out the facts of the case, which has a long planning history. It is recorded in the council minutes that in 1954 Esher Urban District Council granted a planning permission for the retention and continued use of the Pilgrims as a dwelling, but by a condition attached to the permission it restricted its occupation to the owner, and required removal of the structure on the expiration of her occupancy. The intention at that time was to be helpful to the occupier. In 1974, the new Elm-bridge Council reaffirmed that the condition attached to planning permission in 1954 should not be varied.
From the re-establishing of these bare facts of the case within the more general issues raised in the debate, it is clear that in so far as the use of the structure on the site is limited by a personal planning permission, so will that factor be taken into account in the open market and in the compensation that should properly be paid. I stress, however, that it is not for me to interpret the law in the particular case.
Nor can I comment on the compensation offered. This is for negotiation between the vendor and her advisers and the acquiring authority. To the extent

that a dispute on the sum remains, it may be referred to the Lands Tribunal for determination. The other normal entitlements to home loss and the rehousing provisions would apply, and I understand that the Thames Water Authority has this week reaffirmed offers in this respect.
I apologise for having spoken at such length, but the debate is widely framed, encompassing many detailed and complex points. I have explained the basis of the compensation code and the essential link with market value. This has for many years been the fundamental principle of the compensation code, and must continue to be so.
I do not want to underestimate the distress caused when land is taken, and I well appreciate the sympathy which the hon. Gentleman has shown in what he said about his constituent. But I believe that the provisions introduced in the 1973 Act go a long way towards achieving an equitable balance between the competing claims of the individual and the community

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.